Freaks (1932): One of Us?
The film Freaks challenges the norms of Hollywood cinema and contributes to the transformation of the disability movement. Its suppression and censorship reveal how early American cinema created ableist roots in modern Hollywood movies, making the movie feel very contemporary, since we still see a lot of prejudice towards people with disability in the film industry. Freaks is directed by Tod Browning, inspired by a short story called Spurs by Tod Robbins, published in 1923. The director is known for his horror films, such as Dracula. However, he experienced a decline in his career due to the controversy associated with this film.
The storyline revolves around sideshow performers with disabilities, telling the story of Cleo, a beautiful trapeze artist who takes advantage of a person with dwarfism, Hans, by marrying him for his money. It’s important to note that I will use the term “freak” here just within the context. Today, the term is reclaimed and used only by the community as a form of empowerment.
I first encountered Freaks while researching films that influenced the disability movement in the United States. This film was banned in many countries and had scenes cut, which are still lost to this day. It was launched in the pre-code era and has some connections to the Production Code, which was officially implemented after its release.
The meaning of the disabled body shifted radically when it moved from the sideshow to the cinema. In the circus, “freaks” were commercial attractions and objects of fascination; it can be said that this was the pornography of disability. But on film, with the close-ups and large screens, these same bodies were suddenly rejected. This rejection was intensified by Hollywood’s new ideal of the “perfect” body. This combination of factors transformed disability in mainstream narratives into a symbol of pity and tragedy, always looking for a cure. Disability became a metaphor, erasing the presence and agency of real disabled performers.
From 1840 until 1940, freak shows were present in the United States. Freak shows can be associated with matters as diverse as colonialism in Africa, the theory of evolution, the invention of mass-market advertising, and the cinema of attractions (focus on spectacle). Freak shows often displayed non-white and colonized people as “exotic” and “primitive.” Early cinema inherited this group of spectacle culture from the freak show. Freaks is an example of that statement, both in the movie itself and in the public’s reaction.
Hollywood developed its own censorship system to avoid government-imposed censorship. So the studios, alongside the MPPDA and the PCA, self-regulated the industry. However, this pressure intensified in the 1920s with the pressure from external groups, which complained about “immoral” films. The studios, mostly Paramount, MGM, Fox, Warner Bros., RKO, which controlled production to distribution, had to step up so that federal censorship wouldn’t take control away from them. Self-regulation was fundamentally economic; it protected profits, and it was not supposed to be moral. The Production Code was written and approved in 1930, but studios ignored it for four years, until it was strictly enforced in 1934, when the Catholic Legion of Decency organized a massive nationwide boycott.
Freaks is a pre-code MGM production directed by Tod Browning, used to compete with the success of Universal’s Frankenstein. The director, who had run away to join the circus at the age of 16, was chosen due to the success of Dracula, also by Universal, which he had directed before. MGM wanted its own horror sensation, and the public was suddenly open to body horror on screen, so the industry took the representation of non-normative bodies as an economic strategy. The film suffered no interference during shooting; it was only after the test screening that it underwent censorship and a 30-minute cut due to public disapproval, which had pressured the studios to create the Production Code. Freaks demonstrates how Hollywood’s fear of non-normative bodies helped shape the enforcement of the Production Code and influenced decades of disability erasure.
The public’s reaction was one of shock and terror, unsurprisingly given that the United States was at the peak of the eugenics movement. There were even speculations that a woman suffered a miscarriage after viewing the film.
In Freaks, the protagonists are performers with disabilities. They are portrayed as the “good” guys, while the monster is morally represented by Cleo, the nondisabled trapeze artist who exploits Hans for his money. The sense of community is built by this narrative when the “freaks” all come together to stop Cleo from killing Hans. This reinforces the key principle of the disability movement: “Offend one, and you offend them all.”
The most famous scene takes place during the celebration of Hans and Cleo’s wedding, where the “freaks” all shout, “We accept you. One of us!” and drink from one glass. When they try to offer it to Cleo, she panics and rejects it, calling them “freaks.” What caused the discomfort in the public was that the villains in Freaks are the nondisabled people, while the “freaks” are the people with whom you identify.
What gives Freaks enduring support within disability studies is its focus on the quotidian aspects of life. We rarely see the “freaks” perform their acts; we only see them eating, being in a relationship, and even giving birth. There can be a sense of ambiguity when put as a disability spectacle, for example, there is a scene of Prince Randian (The Living Torso), a man born without arms and legs, just lighting a cigarette. That can lead to an interpretation of a daily task becoming inspiring because of his disability. But I didn’t see it that way because the other characters don’t react to it. Even though the film comes from a history of exploitative freak shows, the film portrays disabled performers with agency, community, and everyday lives — elements often missing from Hollywood’s history of pity narratives or inspirational tropes.
The eugenic thinking shapes the panic’s disgust; the “freaks” who were celebrities in the side shows are now being marginalized in cinema, as the freak show loses its power. During the set, many external ableist individuals tried to stop its production, and the recent actors, who had come from the side shows, acted like celebrities. It was also possibly the first Hollywood production to feature people with disabilities acting in their own roles. It emerged as a political and cultural movement in the disability community, which was used as a way to “enfreak” people with disabilities.
