There is something disturbing and fascinating about the image of a clown in the movies. It is a somewhat magical character, that lacks the judgmental attribute of human beings. Hidden beneath the excessive make-up and costume is the common denominator. The clown challenges the barriers of normalcy through merry romping to elicit laughter or through the use of actions to elicit sympathy or terror. In the 1980s, the clown began appearing in films as a figure of terror, a link with the occult, whose purpose was to create fear. In movies like Tobe Hopper’s “Poltergeist” (1982) and John Carpenter’s “Halloween” (1978), clowns were used to create a dark and sinister atmosphere. On Halloween, dressing up as a clown was an opportunity be someone else who is disguised to kill, which is not a far stretch from reality given the case of John Wayne Gacy.
In the silent film era, clowns did not represent anything like that. While they still had a dark and strange aspect to them, there was more of an emphasis on how awful and pathetic their lives were. In the silent films, clowns were mysterious beings whose meanings were not necessarily clear, especially in films marked by German Expressionism. There are several films within this movement where being a clown is portrayed as a humiliating role, a desperate act to survive spiritually or financially, an opportunity for acceptance at the cost of being laughed at.
“The Man Who Laughs” is a remake of one of the last jewels of German Expressionism directed by Paul Leni in 1928. As well, he directed “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”, which itself is also an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s novel of the same name. In “The Man Who Laughs” (1928), the starring roles were shared by silent film stars Conrad Veidt, who had also played the role of Cesare in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and Olga Baclanova, who is remembered for her role as Cleopatra in “Freaks”.
The newer version of “The Man Who Laughs” (2012) features a carnival-like atmosphere representative of that period. This is demonstrated by the details seen in the costumes and set design. This newer version tries to remain more faithful to the novel by Victor Hugo, but fails to surpass the 1928 masterpiece.
The beginning of the story in the silent film version involves a king who, prior to executing his greatest enemy, confesses to him that he had his son, Gwynplaine, captured and disfigured by a band of gypsies known as “comprachicos” (a mercenary group invented by Victor Hugo), who disfigure children and use them as beggars to make money. The king had ordered that the child be given an eternal smile, so that he is constantly laughing at the fool his father was.
By comparison, the new version is more interested in exploring the difficulties Gwynplaine encounters in terms of love and confronting sexual repression (which is only suggested in the silent film version) and within a circus-like atmosphere, Gwynplaine perceives himself as a monster who does not deserve to be happy. The newer version also examines other issues, such as the fascination the aristocracy has with the freak world and Gwynplaine’s morbid pleasure of being around the aristocracy while at the same time rejecting them.
The man with an eternal smile and laugh was the inspiration for the “Joker” character in the Batman film created by Jerry Robinson, Bill Finger and Bob Kane in 1940, in a completely opposite context, because Gwynplaine is a good man who is pure of soul.
The French film of 2012 does not bring anything new to this story. If there was anything so shocking and heartbreaking in the first film of 1928, it was Conrad Veidt’s frozen smile, which is completely lost and replaced by makeup in the 2012 version. The most interesting feature of this new film is that it incites curiosity to discover more about the story and renews interest in the original version, inspiring new generations to explore silent films.
Gwynplaine is a clown without excessive makeup, who has a noble heart that could hardly be associated with our perception of the clown today. There is a deep sadness in seeing him laugh and seeing people laugh at him. Gwynplaine’s story has been adapted into comics, film and theater.
It is evident that the clown of our day has a perverse and sinister side, however cinema can be credited with bringing us back in time and giving us the opportunity to experience the powerful emotions associated with the clowns of that period.