the todd browning film "freaks" (1932) is one of my favorites. i've watched it in more than one university class, using it as a means to discuss the exploitation of people with disabilities in a period when political correctness had no place. the language used in films of this era is such an affront to our modern sensibilities that it almost comes off as absurd and humorous. the film, set in a travelling circus, revolves around the engagement between cleopatra, a beautiful trapeze artist, and hans, a little person who is the ringleader of the sideshow performers. the twist in the plot is that the trapeze artist is actually conspiring with another man to seduce hans- only to murder him and gain his large inheritance.
the most (in)famous scene in the film is when the "freaks" all sit around the table to dinner with the trapeze artist and start chanting "we accept her, one of us" over and over. as the chanting wears on, utensils banging on the table, the trapeze artist and we, as viewers, come to the realization simultaneously that the only way the "freaks" will let her be "one of them" is to mutilate her, thus normalizing her appearance to cruelly match that of those she sought to betray. the film, intending to portray the "normals" as the true monsters and the "freaks" as morally unblemished and trusting, ended up being perceived as just the opposite, a exploitative cinematic freak show. this was no doubt due to studio intervention at the original ending which grimly portrayed cleopatra's conspiratorial lover being castrated by the "freaks", while the trapeze artist's own extremities are melted into grotesque duck feet. the studio, not surprisingly for the era, replaced it with a more "suitable" ending where hans lives happily ever after as a rich man. despite potential for generating money due to its extreme shock value, "freaks" was a flop, and subsequently banned in the u.k. for almost 30 years for being "too shocking". it essentially ruined browning's career. luckily for us, the 1960's brought a surge of interest in cult films, and by proxy "freaks" was saved from the abyss of failed and forgotten films before digitization.
i find it curious when the integrity of a work is corrupted by nature of its easily exploited/mocked subject matter. could a film like "freaks", even today, ever truly be appreciated as anything other than a parade of physical deformities? how can one, as a filmmaker, photographer or artist of any kind, find a middle ground where the inherent qualities of content don't usurp artistic vision? i promise i won't go on about art theory, a history lesson on "freaks" simply felt in order. watch it.
