Unknown Cruelty and Delight

You know, it’s easy sometimes to feel like you’ve seen everything worth seeing.  You’ve seen the classics, the cult-classics, the so-bad-they’re-good treasures, and so much of the new stuff you sample fails to make a particularly deep impression.  But then, every once in a while, you can find something unknown that’s been hiding in plain sight all along, that you had just never heard of before, that can really blow you away. This is one of those.

The Unknown (1927)

This late silent era collaboration between director Tod Browning (who would later direct the horror talkies, Dracula and Freaks) and Lon Chaney, the ‘man of a thousand faces,’ is a blisteringly intense and occasionally hilarious tale of obsession, manipulation, madness, and murder.  And somehow, I had never heard of it until very recently. I’m so grateful that I finally did and sought it out.  Wow. It is a doozy.

I will say, The Unknown is quite plot heavy and it’s practically impossible to discuss effectively without spoiling it, so I suggest you do yourself a favor and go check it out first.  It’s only 50 minutes long and it is worth every second.  It’s currently available at this link (which I hope will stay active indefinitely—if you’re reading this years after I wrote it and I never noticed that the link died, sorry—try google).

Great, you’re back! Wasn’t that a kick in the pants?  The Grand Guignol extremity of it all, the absurd moments of self-realization, the double amputations!  But seriously, let’s run through the story in brief.  So, we follow here the story of Alonzo the armless, who performs in a circus, using his feet to shoot the clothes off of and throw knives at the object of his secret affection, Nanon (a young Joan Crawford), the daughter of the circus owner. She has an overwhelming fear of the hands of men, so it is unfortunate that she has attracted the attention of Malabar the mighty, a big goofy puppy dog of a guy who works as the circus strong man.

Alonzo, determined to keep Nanon all for himself, consistently gives Malabar the very worst advice he could, suggesting that he take her in his strapping arms to make her feel the strength of his love. Malabar is pleased to notice that he does in fact have arms and goes, once again to try hugging the pretty girl. This of course terrorizes her and causes her to feel ever closer to Alonzo, the only man with whom she can feel safe. 

What we soon learn is that Alonzo is actually a criminal on the run from the law, who has contained his arms in a special corset to avoid suspicion. On his left hand, he has a double thumb, which would immediately give him away as the perpetrator of various crimes.  And then a new infraction is added to the list when he strangles Nanon’s father, who had sought to keep Alonzo away from her.

Aided by his friend Cojo, a little person who is sometimes dressed as a devil, Alonzo comes to realize two things: Should Nanon ever marry him, on their wedding night she would discover his subterfuge, as well as his extra thumb, and she had seen her father murdered by a man with just such a thumb. Furthermore, he has grown so accustomed to doing everything with his feet that he no longer needs arms at all.

Thus, Alonzo blackmails a surgeon into amputating both of his arms for real so that he could finally consummate his love.  But of course, in the weeks that Alonzo is away, recovering, Malabar finally comes to understand what he’s been doing wrong all this time, and learns to keep his hands to himself, thus winning the trust and the love of Nanon, who ceases to fear his touch.

Finally Alonzo returns, learns that Nanon and Malabar plan to marry, and sets out to sabotage their new act in which Malabar has his arms strapped to two horses running on treadmills while Nanon whips them on from above.  Should the treadmills suddenly stop, nothing would prevent the horses from running off, taking Malabar’s arms with them. Have you noticed that it’s a film about arms?  Anyway, Alonzo attempts this treachery. The horses almost tear the sweet goofball apart. Nanon tries to stop them and is almost killed. And finally, saving her, Alonzo is trampled to death. Love triumphs. Hate dies. Horses eat hay.

At the end of the day, it’s a straightforward bit of melodrama, but it just plays so well.   The emotions are all so heightened, but in a way that really lands, that you can feel.  I believe Nanon’s fear. I believe Alonzo’s hate and his madness. I believe the earnest charms of Malabar the mighty.  And there are moments here that are simply staggering. 

When Alonzo comes back from his surgery and goes to find Nanon, she initially expresses joy at his return, saying, “now we can be married.” Of course, she’s referring to Malabar, who she calls into the room.  As their arms entwine and Alonzo sees that his self-mutilation has been in vain, we are treated to a perfect moment of cinema.  The film cuts back and forth between the young couple intimately holding each other and warmly laughing and Alonzo laughing in a building crescendo of mind shattering madness, before screaming in despair and collapsing.  The whole sequence last less than 90 seconds, but it feels like it goes on forever, and by the end of it, you may feel a bit mad as well.  It’s a hell of a performance.

And that ending.  The set piece of Malabar between the horses, Nanon lashing them into a frenzy, and Alonzo carrying out his final act of betrayal, builds to such exhausting intensity.  In the end, no arms are extracted, but that almost doesn’t matter.  The horror of the possibility is what lingers.  The mind has already seen it.

And the themes of the film feel surprisingly modern.  When Nanon laments that “all my life men have tried to put their beastly hands on me…to paw over me…I have grown so that I shrink with fear when any man ever touches me,” the sentiment resonates today.  Malabar may come across as a good hearted doofus, but the way he is oblivious to how he is menacing this woman he loves feels…not okay.  To his credit, when he finally gets it through his thick skull what’s going on, he makes the requisite effort not to be so grabby and she warms to him, even coming to love him.

Alonzo, on the other hand, is a fascinating character.  He is truly the protagonist. This is entirely his story.  It is his choices that drive the action, and he is enjoyable to follow.  Crafty, clever, bitter and lovelorn, he is a charismatic presence. And he is undoubtedly a monster. An unrepentant killer, he manipulates and deceives the woman he purportedly loves, murders her father, subjects her to assault by advising Malabar to keep trying to take her in his arms, and finally tries to maul and murder her lover.  He is not a good guy.

But he also feels reflected in the contemporary context.  My whole life, popular culture has prominently featured the trope of the ‘nice guy,’ an intelligent but physically unimpressive outsider, who wants the pretty girl and hates the jock who seems more likely to win her, who insinuates himself as her friend, only to be locked out of her romantic considerations,  and who performs some deceitful act to try to win her. Typically, this has been in a romantic comedy and after this trickery has come to light, the lovable loser is forgiven and finally loved.  But in recent years, this trope has lost allure, has come to feel quite toxic.  He was never a ‘nice guy.’ This guy is a dangerous incel.

And here, while he is our protagonist, Alonzo is never shown as anything other than a monster.  From the beginning, his obsession with this young woman (Chaney was 42, while Crawford was 18 at the time of filming) is shown as possessive and ugly.  He repeats that “no one will have her – no one but me!” The happy ending involves him being crushed by a horse. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Horrors of Fandom

So, since starting this blog, I’ve had to become a bit more active on social media. I don’t know any other way to promote the writing I’m doing here.  But now I’m a member of at least ten different horror groups, so that I can post about different blog entries in groups that seem specifically open to the content of the entries in question. And I will say that, while I appreciate some of the conversations that happen there, the space of fandom is…difficult…to say the least.

It’s strange how the primary activity of many fans seems to be hating things.

Whether it’s fans hating ‘Halloween Kills’ because it betrays the legacy of its characters and loses the thread of its story, the ‘Hellraiser’ reboot because it will feature a trans actress as the lead Cenobite (never named in the source material, but popularly known as Pinhead), or the 2019 ‘Child’s Play’ reboot because the studio ripped the property away from series creator, Don Mancini (who is running a ‘Child’s Play’ TV series currently), there’s a lot of anger out there.

Just as with everything else in modern life, there are endless cycles of outrage.  Someone is ticked off because Rob Zombie has unsurprisingly cast his wife in his upcoming ‘Munsters’ film (big shock – she’s in pretty much all of his movies).  Someone else is enraged that this other person was angry about it.  Yet another person chimes in, attacking the second poster personally, and we’re off to the races. Before you know it, we’re hundreds of comments deep into a sea of vitriol and aggression, just as with any political discussion.

Putting aside the specific merits, or lack thereof, of people’s complaints (which I can sometimes understand and which sometimes, as is the case with ‘Hellraiser,’ I find obtuse, grating, and rooted in the same kind of reactionary mindset that believes that rebooting ‘Ghostbusters’ with an all female cast could somehow destroy their childhood; ‘Pinhead’ has been recast before, most of the sequels have been weak at best, doing more to tarnish the legacy of the series than any casting choice ever could, and in the novelette on which it’s based, the lead Cenobite is described as neither male or female, but with a high, girlish voice, so this casting seems pretty appropriate), I do wonder why this trend has become so prominent.

Is it the inherent toxicity of social media, echoing and amplifying any negative sentiment to the nth degree? Is it just a natural outgrowth of the process of really coming to know something and therefore, having more fully developed critical reactions? Is it an issue of human beings simply being entitled and demanding, feeling some sense of ownership over things they love and assuming that film makers owe them for their allegiance? Does this just happen because we love something so much that we can’t accept any changes to it (for instance, would people have gotten angry about the 2019 ‘Black Christmas’ if it had had a different name – it was a completely different story and if they’d removed a couple direct nods to the original, it could have stood on its own legs; some trollish types could still object to its heart on its sleeve social consciousness, but they probably wouldn’t have paid it so much attention)? And is this all really a problem, or is it just a natural, if sometimes depressing, aspect of caring about something?

I mean, if we want to believe that good art in general, good film (more specifically), and good horror (most precisely) can be of value, can somehow do good, justifying the tremendous amount of time, energy, creativity, talent, and money that goes into producing it (and I do want to believe that), we must accept the inverse: bad art/film/horror is of negative value, can do harm, wastes vital time, creativity, care, and resources, and must, therefore, be stopped at all costs.

And I can’t say I’ve never gotten worked up over something.  Back in the early-mid 2000s, when Horror was on a big reboot kick, I was personally offended at the idea of Michael Bay producing an expensive, slick remake of ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ How dare a film studio buy the rights to some property, with the blessings of its original creator, and try to make more money off of it? But seriously, I hated it at the time.  Same deal with the pretty popular Zack Snyder ‘Dawn of the Dead’ remake.  I remember thinking that this blatant cash grab, this expensive, action packed audience pleaser really missed the point of the original film, flying in the face of its critique of modern consumerism.

Maybe I was right on both counts. Maybe I was over-reacting to an innate feature of show business – this is a business and in both cases, as with other remakes I may have rolled my eyes at, there was an audience for the film. Neither was made for me, and I probably didn’t have any right to expect otherwise. Panned at its release, the 2003 ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre” has since been reappraised by many fans and is held in better esteem. And the 2004 ‘Dawn of the Dead’ was a hit which, along with ‘28 Days Later’ from two years earlier, helped kick off a zombie renaissance.  I have not revisited either film since first viewing, but maybe if I did, with some distance, I could find things to enjoy in them both. Or I could find myself holding a grudge; I don’t know.

These days, I find myself more sanguine in the face of such things.  There is so much to see, so much to catch up on, that it feels like a waste of my very limited energy to focus on things that don’t appeal to me.  I’m trying on this blog to only write about films that I think are actually worth writing about. I think that’s a fair rule. I’m not a journalist. I don’t have some sort of responsibility to take in every new horror film on offer and give an objective adjudication of its value.  I can choose to discuss the works that actually interest me.  I can devote my efforts to analyzing only pieces that excite my critical mind.

Of course, I may eventually break this self-imposed restriction. I may get so offended at the aesthetic or social messaging crimes of some flick that I just have to come here to vent my spleen. I may see or read something wherein a blistering critique feels called for, feels like the most interesting choice. There are things, of course, that need criticizing. The world is generally, not great…

But, for now, let’s keep it positive. On my horror blog. Yup.