What is the plot - in one sentence? We follow a 'Gypsy' travelling circus, and focus on the unrequited love of a man with no arms towards a woman who is afraid of arms in general, and hands in particular.
I don't have time, just spoil it for me? It turns out he DOES have arms, but he hides them so that he's not suspected of any of the crimes he's committing (murder and theft, mainly), and in an effort to get her to fall for him, he has his arms removed... But during his convalescence, she falls in love with a muscular strongman, and he dies / commits suicide instead of kill her and him like he'd planned.
What is the meaning of the title? I think it's because him having arms, and then no arms, is unknown, and then his love is unknown when she gets cradled by a circus strongman. I guess.
Here is our armless anti-her, his unrequited love (who has a Manophobia), and their helpful midget companion Cujo.
Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? For something this old, there's not too much to complain about (though I'm sure some fuckers would), there's an awkward scene where the ringleader beats on the no-armed bloke who fends him off with his feet, but it's hard to feel too bad, as he's killed almost instantly (by the guy who was pretending to have no legs). This whole thing is weird enough to have aged really well. There's also a gypsy burial ritual which doesn't look legit, but what are you going to do? complain? They're all dead, so don't worry.
Any thoughts? This was very strange indeed. It's seemingly by the same guy who made 'Freaks' a movie I was obsessed with as a younger, thinner man, and this shares a lot of DNA with that movie. They're both focused around travelling circuses and deal with unrequited love between 'normal' and disfigured people. This isn't quite so exploitative to disfigured people as Freaks is (and even that movie paints them in a positive light), and a midget named Cujo is shown as loyal and reasonable.
for such a story though, my main thought though, is... which came first, the arm-phobia, or him pretending to have no arms? Was he hiding his arms first, and then she came along with an arm phobia? It can't be the other way, as it wouldn't work the other way, but how convenient is that for a plot point?
The main woman, a rare thing, an attractive woman from pre-WWII, is played by Joan Crawford. Her act in the show, it seems, it to have weapons flung at her and to pose in skimpy outfits. She does both very well. She also has a phobia of men's hands, which hints at some hideous abuse in her childhood. If you look at an interpretation of 'hands' = 'penis,' the implication that she LOVES it by the end, when it belongs to Malabar the Mighty, the strongman she marries. Let's not talk about the fact that a circus strongman in the 1920s is less muscular than the average man of today.
What is very interesting about the whole thing is that he cuts his arms off without her giving any indication that she's into him romantically. He overthinks her giving him a friendly kiss and that spurs his love. Consent isn't required. In fact, she's so oblivious to it, that when she breaks the news that she's eloped with Malabar, he starts crying, and her reaction is 'you're crying because you're so happy for us?' - way to read the situation, Joanie.
So, in revenge... for him having his own arms cut off,... he goes to sabotage a new trick by Malabar the Mighty, with the intention of killing him. The trick involves him holding two horses which are running on treadmills. Surely stopping them from running off and ripping your arms off is an impossible task, even for a mighty man of the era, but I don't think it would be very impressive anyway. As if he achieve it (stopped the horses running away) people would assume it was fake, if it failed, he'd lose his arms. I was sure that the movie would end with her having to choose between men without arms, but it never happened. Midway through the sabotage, the no-armed bloke (played by Lon Cheney) has a change of heart and ends up stopping it, and committing suicide by getting a horse running on his chest. This is a man who doesn't ever take the simple way out.
Would you recommend this? Yep, this was weird enough and interesting enough to enjoy. It also had the good grace to be over quickly, too. Most of the time I like a movie to take its time, but in this one, I don't mind, do what you do.
In this one, it's revealed that he has arms after 13 minutes. 2 minutes later, he's killed someone. The whole thing is wrapped up very quickly, which is this case is... Nice.
Final thoughts? I can't underline just how strange this was. There were some interesting scenes where he used his feet as he would hands, to show how used to that situation he'd become, including him holding his chin in a pensive manner. He also threw knives at a spinning Joan Crawford in a pretty impressive manner too. Fair play there.
My big thought however, is the final step for him to cut his arms off is when he realises that her seeing his 'double thumbs' would implicate him in a crime. My question is, therefore, why not just cut of the extra thumb and see what happens then?
Wikipedia says that there was a deleted reel where he kills the corrupt surgeon who performs the operation, and on his loyal midget friend Cujo - a man killing two people with his feet? Now that is a deleted scene I'd like to see.
Enjoyed this? Check out more here.
No comments:
Post a Comment