Talk:Freaks (1932 film)/Archive 1

Overview

This overview is chronologically wrong. During the wedding party, Cleo first, puts the poison into Hans's cup, then she kisses Hercules in front of Hans, then the chant and "initiation" happens. After that begins she stands up and perturbed at the idea of becoming one of "them" she tosses the wine at the individual who offered it to her, not Hans. Just thought I ought to point that out. Please change the entry accordingly. Bozu 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange Sentence

(actually a man, despite the dress which was for ease of using the restroom, Simon Metz) This sentence, to me, makes it sound as though Simon Metz is the restroom. I can;t work out how to rephrase it, though. Can someone suggest something here? Benny 18:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem was that the paragraph was just one very long sentence. I've broken it down into smaller sentences. I think it's still not quite right, but hopefully better. Maybe you could have another look at it and see what else needs changing - the article itself is fairly short so I don't see a problem with even making the paragraph a bit longer, if that makes it easier to read. Rossrs 00:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Influences

The quote "one of us..." was also used in an original song featured in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, directed by John Cameron Mitchell. The song was called "Freaks", written by Stephen Trask and performed by Stephen Trask and Girls Against Boys Bezoomny 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reaction

Reaction to this film was so intense that Browning had trouble finding work afterwards, and this in effect brought his career to an early close. The movie was banned in the United Kingdom for thirty years.

Can someone expand on this? It's not obvious to me what audiences of the time found so outrageous about the film.

Well, the, you know, freaks. Gorjus 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Quote

Under the (very great) "Famous Quote" section, someone had inserted a quote from Hans the midget. That's not relevant to the section--which is only about the "one of us" quote. Perhaps a new section on "other quotes" is needed, but I don't think so.

Fair use rationale for Image:Freaks.jpg

Image:Freaks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I originally uploaded this image at a time when there were no other images for this article, and when I was notified that it was being listed for deletion, I took no action, thinking that it's not a bad thing for superfluous images to be deleted. I see no reason for this image to be retained. The article now has 3 images that are variations of posters/promotional material, each of them unfree images, and none of them showing anything significantly different. One such image is enough for this article and I disagree that the need for this image to remain has been demonstrated. I think it is important that we are able to use a claim of fair use when necessary, but that such uses should occur sparingly. Rossrs 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest you take the necessary measures to delete and cleanup. --Northmeister 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the DVD cover and listed it for deletion as an orphan. The other film poster is being used in another article and I'll leave it there, although I disagree that it's being used by our definition of "fair". Rossrs 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I watched the whole film and at no point during the movie I was "horrified". Why is the category horror movie ? This is gross insensitivity towards those born with defects. They shouldnt freak you out. Thats the whole point of the movie. Please change the category of the movie. Do I sound reasonable ? - Swapnil

Maybe it's a horror movie because when it was made it disturbed people. Horror movies don't necessarily mean that everyone dies in a movie, it overall is meant to send people into a state of terror. Though it may be cruelly stated that people with defects are freaks, these people devoted their lives to being 'freaks' in the circus. It is technically a horror film made a long time ago. - Chelsea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.72.61.210 (talk) 10:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

It's still horrifying today, if you know how to watch it. It's what I think of as a REAL horror movie, not just stereotyped blood and gore. The viewer should be asking him/herself if the "freaks" of the title really refer to the physically-challenged characters, or to the so-called "normal" people who are morally freaks. This was the whole problem with the film, as I understand it: too many people at that time couldn't get past the physical anomalies to see what the film was really saying. Nor, apparently, can many of us, though for the opposite reason - we're too jaded by modern media exposure to such stuff to be too disturbed by the actors themselves, but we're also too busy finding it "politically incorrect" to see what's really behind it! 149.159.109.122 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The categorization of horror may have something to do with the fact that Browning was most famous for his work in the horror genre. KHorberg 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Robinson

What's wrong with this dude? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"One of us" references

Is it necessarily true that every chanting of the phrase "one of us" is a direct homage to this film? I suggest that only the instances that are clearly related - i.e., they contain a more clearly identifiable portion of the signature phrasing (the nonsense gobble-words, or the entire "we accept her, we accept her, one of us," etc.) or the writer/speaker specifically credits it as a reference - be included. After all, "one of us" isn't that unusual a phrase, nor is the idea of chanting something!149.159.109.122 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not most of them, but the chanting of "Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us" in the Ramones song "Pinhead" is almost definetly a homage to the movie. 68.5.176.224 (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Why did you remove the comment about The Big Bang Theory? That show used "One of us!" as a clear reference to Freaks, and it was brilliant. The episode prepared for "One of us!" by again stating that all the guys were geeks. Geek now translates to Freak, though people forget that it originally referred to a different sideshow at the carnival. Robert Abbott (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD

Question to anyone with knowledge, as I am a rather recent and not too involved editor.

I do not know why this page seems to attract so many pathological personalities. Perhaps it is the "Freaks" thing. But I notice that this above user edits this page frequently and often makes random and unjustified removals of things he or she simply does not like. Case in point, I restored a link added by another editor that clearly met WP:ELYES and editor MarnetteD removed it claiming, "(rmv per WP:EL and WP:COI - Dan Schneider is known for trying to add his reviews to many wikipages - there is naught in the review that adds to the understanding of the film)". This was after claiming the link did not meet WP:EL. I will assume that since I showed that the link did meet EL, that this editor chose another random reason to remove the link. He then claims Conflict of Interest. But, even if the editor who added it was this Dan Schneider, that page clearly states "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." Now, I'm no expert, but the review linked was clearly well written, favorable to the film, and gave some insight into it. Then, editor MarnetteD states, "there is naught in the review that adds to the understanding of the film." Clearly, this is a POV statement, and shows a bias against the review and the writer. This seems to be a clear conflict of interest, no? One of the first pages I was led to when I wanted to edit was WP:AGF. To quote that page's nutshell: "* Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. * If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence." It seems to me that editor MarnetteD is not doing that here, and in just a quick glance at his contributions page, he seems to do this on many pages, of all topics, reverting or removing things that he simply does not like, and on a whim. Do not get me wrong. I am not arguing for or against this link per se, and a look at my contributions shows that I have removed content, too--even from this entry. But, I have limited that to unsourced claims, and the like. There is no conflict of interest, and I have assumed good faith in removing these things. The above user does not, and seems to bully his way on many pages. As I have shown, he/she seems to make up justifications as he goes along, and even when shown as wrong simply ignores evidence to the contrary, and basically edits to Wikipedia's detriment.

Of course, I could be wrong, and if someone can explain what I have missed it would be appreciated. That, or other than a ceaseless edit war, how does one reprimand an editor who shows such flagrant disregard for rules, and assumes no good faith?

And, if no way exists, I have to wonder how anything positive ever gets done with editors like this willfully mucking up the works? Mullerjena (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, for an editor whose contributions go back only to December 4th, you certainly seem to know a lot about Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, don't WP:BITE, Ed. Anyway, to answer your question, the correct first step in any dispute is to do what you just did, come to the talk page. However, your problem seems to be related to one particular editor rather than the article itself, so you may want to try talking directly to that editor on their talk page. If neither of those approaches works, you may wish to pursue dispute resolution. Requests for Comment is a good place to start, it is a low level, non-binding process designed to get fresh input on the given subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. Ed: I stated what my beef was, and stated that I am not a long time editor. I am a long time reader, and have friends who edit Wiki, who guided me to the page I listed above as one of the first pages to check out, among others. Thus, I know about edit wars, and have seen the user I named engages in many of these a day, it seems. For that reason I have chosen not to pursue this because I can see I'd never win with an editor that seems to get some glee out of constantly warring. My point was simply that the link I restored met the Wiki guidelines and this editor ignored them for rather dubious reasons. That's why I pointed out the good faith argument. That's a funny Bite page, though. ;) Mullerjena (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that talk pages are not to be used for personal attacks - a fact which Beeblebrox failed to point out to this person who is not a newbie by there own admission. The accusations are also not backed up by fact but all of that aside the reason for removing Schneider's spam links is being discussed once again here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Dan Schneider inserting spam links again. MarnetteD | Talk 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)