User reviews

Every so often one has the pleasure of discovering a film so unusual that it seems that nothing has influenced it in its creation of a world all its own. One such was David Lynch's "Eraserhead", another, Charles Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" and now to join the august company is Alexsei Balabanov's "Of Freaks and Men". By dressing up a most scurrilous plot in images of extraodinary elegance and beauty the director has created an astonishingly original entertainment. Turn of the century St. Petersburg is hauntingly captured in beautiful sepia visuals of waterways and bridges, classical exteriors and upper class salons. But behind this facade the very devil is at work in the form of a gang of pornographic photographers who insinuate themselves into the lives of two respectable families whom they summarily proceed to corrupt. In due course the daughter of a highly respected engineer is enjoying having her naked buttocks spanked by an old crone in front of the camera, while the blind wife of a doctor in the other household becomes infatuated with another member of the gang who is only there to satisfy his paedophiliac fascination with the adolescent boy Siamese twins she and her husband have adopted. And this only for starters! As things go from bad to worse and goings on become more depraved - although admittedly we see no more than the odd spanking - the visuals become ever more beautiful particularly when the twins travel to the snowbound east and the girl travels west to wander a townscape of blowing autumn leaves. I think Balabanov is trying to say something about the voyeuristic nature of the camera and the progress of photography from still to moving pictures. To probe for deeper meanings wound not be very fruitful from a film whose raison d'etre, I suspect, is simply to intrigue and delight.

In an era in which the video shop shelves and TV schedules are dominated by formula-pap, it is refreshing to find a film that stimulates thought for days afterwards. The question is: what's it all about? Is the film commenting on life in pre-revolutionary Russia, on the exploitation of 'freaks', on the corrupting power of pornography, or perhaps none or all of these? I came away from it thinking that the film was primarily about the ways in which film-making can be misused; that it examined the role of those drawn into 'the pornography industry' whether exploiter, exploited, or idealistic artist more interested in technique than subject matter. In thinking about that interpretation I found myself pondering the role of Putilov, seemingly an idealist; would it not be more accurate to describe him as amoral, as the artist determined to remain aloof from the degradation and humiliation required for completion of his projects?

I think the film raises questions about the extent to which the film-maker can remain untarnished by the moral issues that he purports to examine objectively and from a detached perspective. If Putilov agrees to co-operate in the filming or photography of the naked, frightened Siamese twins or of the whipping of a young woman can he really escape responsibility for their plight? Is he really entitled to walk away with his reputation intact? The immoral Johann is easier to condemn: he is a sadist who will kill at the drop of a hat to preserve his way of life and business. A jury would take much longer to decide its verdict on Putilov.

I've seen this brilliantly directed Russian movie at the 18th Istanbul International Film Festival and I was mesmerized by the beauty of it. It's definitely not a movie for all tastes. It's crammed with sick ideas. But the film is very rewarding, for those who are willing to watch it. The use of colour (sapia) is fascinating and the cinematography is breathtaking. The film also has a unique sense of humor, it's very absurd and sometimes really funny. I think it may gain a cult status in time. This film makes you think, that the movies from the early era could have been nastier or maybe they were not that innocent at all. And of course that the art of movie-making (and also photography for sure) is highly connected with voyeurism. Well at the end I'd like to say: If you are familiar with these themes and if you are a devoted cinema lover then stick with this one, because it is a unique masterpiece and in my personal opinion it's one of the best movies of this decade.

One of the disadvantages of being an Englishman living in Amsterdam, of course, is that the linguistic barriers impose some pretty severe limitations on ones cinematic diet. However, given that the choice between watching films like this and the likes of the 'The Phantom Menace' would have yielded the same conclusion whatever language it was to be viewed in, I am pleased to say that my embryonic graspings of the Dutch language were sufficient to cope in this particular case. Whether this can be put down to simplistic subtitling, the succinct approach to dialogue of Russian films, or director Alexei Balabanov's grasp of the fact that in the hypothetically visual culture of cinema, actions speak louder than words, is debatable. Whatever; I came, I saw, and I enjoyed.

Director Alexei Balabanov, whose 1997 debut was 'Brother' ('Brat'), has here created a fascinating tale around the subject of pornography in turn of the century St Petersberg. Johann (Sergei Makovetsky), a purveyor of salacious erotic autochromes of staged flagellation scenes, along with assistant Victor, worms his way into the lives of two noble families, drawing adopted Mongolian conjoined twins Kolja and Tolja and the delicately beautiful Lisa (Dinara Drukarova) into his enterprise as subjects for his short erotic films.

From the early blue-tinted scenes detailing the birth and background of the twins, set to a soundtrack all but silent save for the presence of hisses and scratches, to the vivid invocation of a feverish preoccupation with all things sexual welling beneath the austere trappings of the Russian bourgeoisie, Balabanov lyrically invokes the spirit of the times. 'Of Freaks and Men' is nothing if it is not beautiful and evocative, crisply photographed in monochrome by cinematographer Sergei Astakhov. There is dark quirky humour here, and a host of eccentric periphery characters, from the lustily compliant serving maid, to a blind wife, and Johann's snaggle-toothed henchman. Visually the film is consistently rich and fascinating.

The premise, of course, is guaranteed to offend the more conservative of viewers. The numerous whipping scenes as well as the portrayal of Johann's treatment of the twins are sure to prove distasteful to those approaching with a more polically correct viewpoint, though the studied art direction and period stylistic veneer distances the viewer to some extent. This, after all is a film about the origins of pornography, and it is not really pornographic in itself. It also touches on a fear of technology (in this case, the emerging medium of cinema), and how that new technology can either empower or enslave. Despite the rather flaccid denouement, and at times seeming slightly overblown in its characterisation of Johann (whose dominance is more usually manifested by means of a handgun rather than a camera), the intriguingly original premise and stunning sepia-toned cinematography should prove ample reward for the curious viewer. After all, there are not a lot of Russian films getting shown over here at the moment.

This is one rich movie of one of the most respected Russian directors of the turn of the millennium (Cargo 200, Brother 1 and 2), in his most stylistic edition.

The movie has a Dostoevskian feel to it, and is extremely cynical. A psychopathic and art producing pimp and his menacing henchmen, his evil murderous sister, a corrupt girl and adulterous wife meeting their fate, a seemingly innocent but ultimately plagiarizing thief of a youth, a pervert maid and dirty old nanny, an alcoholic perverted kid who has a Siamese brother, perhaps one of the only three moral characters, who are all met or faced with death, all inhabit this fictional universe. Unloved unselfish husband and famous doctor, a good engineer with a weak heart and several other characters die or are offed in most leisurely and fun ways. This bleak but realistic portrayal of the human condition is a reflection of the Yeltsin perverted era in which this masterpiece was produced.

The movie is very reflective and well done. It has a well placed and impeccably paced misanthropy for which the now deceased director is famous, director who despite of his immense talent, probably rots in Hell. Not because he is necessarily evil, but because he is exactly the kind of amusing character Devil would like to have a company of. He feels quite at home there, if indeed there is such a place, observing the inhabitants of doom with the same detached amusement and artistic wit he demonstrated aptly in his cinematic gems.

This works on a dreamlike level rather than as a coherent story: the content is contained in the images and the relationships of the characters. Some of the events seem oddly motivated but make sense when seen as part of a tapestry. What is the tapestry depicting? The film is about the appropriation of a certain reality (which I would read as a psychological reality) by certain unruly elements in human nature. Those elements desire pleasure in pain and seek no relationships outside the exploitative. Amongst the central characters are a pair of Siamese twins but the filmmakers have gone out of their way to show that all of the characters are mental and emotional 'freaks'. What is interesting is that none of the characters who are exploited are really victims - they contain the seeds of their involvement in the central pornographic film-making within them from the first. This is even true of the Siamese, one of whom is innately drawn towards debauchery. The film is excellent at giving us the feel of a situation in which anarchic elements of the psyche rule. It is a bleak exercise - the characters who seem to escape to the West cannot escape their perverse desires (which bring them no happiness) and the idealist filmmaker portrayed is finally a sell-out. In that sense I found the film too bleak - there has to be some hope in the world! Maybe the filmmaker is attacking what has gone on in Russia since the fall of Communism: with the country run by gangsters and the people willingly being exploited. This film feels amazing but leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Very odd Russian film, with a modern, almost postmodern theme (concerning Siamese twins and pornography), but set in the early years of the twentieth century and shot in a faux-naive style that one might almost believe was that of films from this period, if one was not aware of what they were really like. There's much to enjoy: the beautiful sepia photography (of the Russian winter, and of eyeballs); great facial acting; the downright oddness of plot, scene composition characterisation and movement; the sudden discontinuities, and the semi-random, peculiarly worded captions. Hardly a movie in the traditional sense, but still a work of art.

This movie is my first encounter with Balabanov's cinema,and I was really shocked,not so by the movie in itself,but by its rhetoric which is the most opposite one might imagine or expect from a Russian movie. I am deeply in doubt that this movie speaks about the pre-revolutionary pornographic film industry;it's a bleak,tragic,morbid,kinky gaze on the Russian bourgeoisie society in the beginning of the 20th century.Petersburg here has a lot from Schnitzler's or Freud's Vienna-it's a decomposed,moral corrupted and bored society.The way Balabanov films Petersburg is a reflection of this feelings;it remembered me "Death in Venice" by Visconti-the unforgettable travel on Neva,and generally the outdoor scenes seem in the way that another Russian master,Sokurov filmed,in "Father and Son" the city. It's clear that this atmosphere is the same one that Freud encountered in Vienna,the same pathological sexual explorations,which mirror a convulsion and basically corrupted personality.Everything is,in a way,out of joint in the characters, Johann and Vladimir that are a very bekettian couple-remember Colin and Vladimir from "waiting for Godot",or Clov an Hamm from Endgame-they lack logic,and even psychology;Putilov,and his Bakunin-friendly look is a clumsy and impotent man,to say nothing about women,very Russian in their next to pleasure victim role.

This is an uneasy,difficult,but also rewarding movie.If you want to see pornographic stuff,BDSM,or spanking,this is not your movie,sorry.

Alexei's Balabanov's Of Freaks of Men was a quite strange yet interesting viewing experience. The film mechanics and overall setting seemed to contradict the content that was being portrayed, perhaps to construct a novel "Balabanov" perspective. For instance, the use of pre- Revolutionary Tsarist Russia as a setting, complete with bourgeois colonnade backdrops and 19th century luxuries and proprieties, to display an underground pornography business that slowly takes over the lives of the main characters was quite an unexpected juxtaposition. The use of "brown-screen" (black and white?), intertitles, and classical music further strengthened this divide, almost making it seem like the organized crime of Balabanov's Brother 2 existed and was captured on film in the early days of cinema!

There are several ways one can interpret this artistic leap. One interesting perspective is to view the decline of the doctor's and engineer's Bourgeois families at the hands of the exploiting Johann as yet another example of the failure of Capitalism in the eyes of a Communist. The fathers of the two families made their money in a hog- eat-hog Capitalistic world, and their children (Tolya/Kolya and Liza respectively) ended up being used by a bigger Capitalist hog, Johann the pornographer. An alternative view would be a demonstration of how post- Soviet Russian organized crime was not an artifact of that particular era, and that it existed underground since before even Communism. That would have turned the movie into a nationalistic excuse for the deterioration that occurred in Russia after Gorbachev.

Although other views can be constructed, I feel like this movie was nevertheless a very successful and creative experiment on Balabanov's part. He has captured the new in the style of the very old to create a unique movie.

The story is a bit surreal, and may be a bit difficult to get really engaged in - though all the actors do a great job. But the truly magnificent cinematography by Sergei Astakhov is what makes this movie a little gem. It's like watching a moving painting. It's simply marvelous!

This film was made in between the two Brother films, and Balabanov cited it as one of his personal favorites, together with Morphine and Cargo 200.

Unquestionably the film features a talented cast, including veteran Viktor Sukhorukov and would be Brother 2 stars Sergei Makovetskiy and Darya Yurgens (Lesnikova). Unfortunately, while the plot is comprehensible, lovers of traditional narrative will find holes here and there that will annoy. If Balabanov wanted to play it loose, he did not go far enough. As a result, we're in the middle of a traditional story and something bordering on the 'mood and symbolism' zone.

The tone of the story is dark, as is traditional for Balabanov, but unlike some of his other films it doesn't really give you anything to take home that is redeeming - it leaves the viewer with a sense of depression. Even in the darker and more gruesome Cargo 200 this is not exactly the case.

The only reason I give this five stars and not less is that on top of the talented cast Balabanov was blessed to work with, the cinematography and art direction are pretty solid, as is the music. But that alone cannot save a film with a script that is good on characters but weak on the genuineness and commitment of plot.

"Pro urodov i lyudej" (Aleksei Balabanov, 1998) is a dark, quixotic look at the earliest days of underground film making in Russia. One of its most interesting features is that the entire film is shot in sepia tone rather than full color, no doubt to emphasize the dreariness of its subject. There are a few outdoor scenes that show us a blue sky, but aside from that the entire film is rendered in that muted sepia color.

The sad-faced, willowy Dinara Drukarova plays Lisa, a young woman who is imprisoned in her own family home and forced to pose nude for the camera, being whipped on screen for the pleasure of a few depraved male customers. After several months of captivity, Lisa escapes and heads for the big city to make a new life for herself... but discovers that the degrading scenes she has been posing for have become a fixation for her.

The title translates into English as "Of Freaks and Men."The "freaks" part comes in when we are introduced to young Siamese twins, joined at the waist.

But as the film progresses, we perceive that the twins are the least "freaky" characters in the film.

Though the scenario is admittedly somber, there is a richness of tone and a strong storyline driving the film forward. We want to know what ultimately happens to the heroine, Lisa, and to the young conjoined twins. "Of Freaks and Men" is justly celebrated for these compelling virtues.

Of freaks and men is definitely an interesting film. However, it is predictable and repetitive. I guess, the only really interesting thing about it is cinematography. Repetitiveness, meanwhile, shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the works of Balabanov, undoubtedly the most repetitive director of today.

One of these films probably best enjoyed as a solitary pleasure, seeing that it is so far removed from mainstream cinema. And pleasure is the word.... from the grainy yet warm black and white silent cinematography to the relentless Johann's efforts to infiltrate and degrade two middle-class St Petersburg families into his porn filmaking business. The siamese twins represent a sort of duality - there is the 'pure' one who detests alcohol and abhors the sordidness he has been dragged into and there is the 'corrupted' one who takes to the wine that Johann offers him with relish and seduces the middle-class girl. After Johann dies and his network dissolves, no one can find happiness. The girl goes west and the twins go east - both are isolated and excluded. It is interesting to see how early 20th century Russia took and adapted the trappings of European Victorian social mores.

I didn't think much of the film when I thought to give it a try. The plot didn't seem that interesting but it was recommended to me in some thread somewhere. Having watched it, I'm amazed this film isn't well known. The film almost seems like a dream, bleak and bizarre. The production is top notch, and I loved almost all dialogue. The characters were just like those in a dream, you know they serve a purpose but you can't really define them. More like the things around us in real life. Only their absence can ever make the heart grow fonder. With the sepia coloured scenes, many scenes make an etching mark on your memory which also connects you to some nostalgic moment in your past and makes you long for more. It would be hard for me to believe that any other music could be compatible for this film as was the heart-wrenching music and singing from the accordion and the Siamese twins. Watch this film to visit the evening of your emotions.

While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.

I saw this film last night, and I must say it completely captivated me. Two bizarre men, Johan and Ivan, who photograph women being whipped, infiltrate their way into two upper-class families.

The photography is fantastic and the sepia tones are captivating. St. Petersburg looks like it has come alive from circa 1910, as do all of the shots of buildings and towns. Parts of the film are shot in "silent film" style, and I wouldn't have minded if it was silent -- visually, it's stunning and completely worth your hour and a half of time just as a silent film. In addition, the acting is great (as someone else said, great facial acting: the camera often lingers on a character's face for a lengthy shot). Each actor seems perfect in their unique role. I don't want to give anything away, but these actors will surprise you with their characters. And of course, the acting hangs on the writing, which is brilliant. The dialogue is incredibly sparse and minimal and yet moves the story along rather quickly. I couldn't ask for more. As for the spanking, there is a lot of it in this movie. The scenes are somewhat erotic, more often they're shocking and funny. if this would disturb you, stay away from this film. If you have a good sense of humor or just enjoy it, then feel free. Lastly, Balbanov is a great director (if you have not seen Grus-200, do so as soon as you can!) and a gifted writer. His stories of Russian life ring with a quality of realism...some tend to see an allegory for soviet life in his work. Perhaps that's true for this film as well...

A very odd and freaky film with freaky (not just physical freakiness but mental freakiness as well.. ) characters, yet unforgettable for its images. What are they? St Petersburg/Leningrad shots without a soul in sight except for the film's characters. The closing shot of Johann stepping on a sheet of ice as it carries him away to possibly drown as the ice is melting downstream. The director's interest in the evolution of cinematography from still photography (embodied in the odd character Putilov). The images of steam engines that constantly appear outside Lisa's apartment and eventually carries her away (not in a carriage but in the single engine itself). And the evil, toothy smile of Viktor Ivanovich. There is even a tram that works on roads with a steam engine (is that a historical fact or Balabanov's imagination at work?) And the entire film is shot in sepia and black. My first Balabanov film. The political commentary is well-couched in deceptive visual metaphors.

It is sad that some find this film worth watching. I am Russian, and I am disgusted. There is nothing in this film that deserves praise, except cinematography. However, I am not one of those who find beauty in death or perversion. I think this film is poorly designed and directed. There is nothing more irritating and even enraging than shameless speculation in art (if you can call this garbage art). Balabanov wanted to shock the viewers by pervasive evil, and he succeeded in creating a hopelessly dark film. But the biggest shock is Balabanov's primitive directorial work. I would never advise any of my friends to watch it. Huge disappointment!