"ONE OF US, ONE OF US" - A REVIEW OF TOD BROWNING'S FREAKS Tod Brownings 1932 cult classic,Freaks, is a remarkable film

that has attracted varied and extreme reactions. Some critics claim that it is one of the most disturbing films ever made (Norden, 1994, p. 115) - a stance supported by the films short-lived circulation and 30-year banning in some countries. Others argue that its a profoundly human story (Skal, in Warner Home Video, 2004, 1:02:45). Still, others simply make the observation that it is the most controversial disability related film (Whittington-Walsh, 2002, p. 697). These conflicting viewpoints demonstrate the unique and thought-provoking nature of Freaks, and have ensured that the film has remained popular fodder amongst scholars and critics interested in disability portrayal in film. FILM SYNOPSIS Browning takes audiences beyond the big top and into the caravan-filled world of a travelling circus that epitomises the carny culture (Hawkins, 2000, p. 143). This hedonistic world includes a wide variety of characters, from those who work in the circus freak show (with physical and/or mental impairments) through to star performers such as the trapeze artists and strong men (the able-bodied beautiful people). It is the machinations between these two groups that underscore the movies plot. The film follows the story of Hans, a man of short stature (and, therefore, one of the freaks) and his seemingly ill-fated romance with a tall, blonde, glamorous trapeze artist called Cleopatra. Driven by lust, Hans jeopardises his engagement with Frieda another character of short-stature - and instead showers Cleopatra with gifts, money and adoration. Cleopatra responds with feigned affection but secretly cavorts with the circus strong man, Hercules, and they spend their time mocking Hans and plotting ways to exploit him even further. This eventually leads to a plan of Cleopatra marrying Hans, and subsequently poisoning him so that she may inherit his fortune. Cleopatra succeeds in marrying Hans, but soon reveals her true colours. At the wedding feast a raucous gathering of the circus freaks, along with Cleopatra and Hercules - the group decides to accept Cleopatra as one of them and begin sharing round a communal loving cup of wine, accompanied by the famous chant of we accept her, we accept her, one of us, one of us. Horrified at the thought of becoming one of them, Cleopatra screams that they are all filthy, slimy freaks and throws the wine at the freak who passed her the cup. From here, its all downhill for Cleopatra and Hercules. Although they still continue with their plan to poison Hans, the freaks who have a code unto themselves are cued into their plan and band together to exact revenge. In a series of dark and violent scenes, the freaks set about to turn Cleopatra and Hercules into what they most fear one of them. DISABILITY PORTRAYAL The way in which physical and mental disability is portrayed in Freaks has provoked quite passionate discussion over the years amongst critics and disability scholars (Hawkins, 2000; Skal, 2004). The main criticisms of the film are that it subscribes to common disability stereotypes by portraying the freaks as obsessive avengers, evil and/or curios (Norden, 1994; Barnes, 1992). These claims have some merit, but further examination of the films subtleties can also provide an argument for Freaks being a film ahead of its time in terms of positive portrayal of disability. Esteemed film and disability scholar, Martin Norden (2007, p. 128), describes an obsessive avenger as a character who, in the name of revenge, relentlessly pursues those he believes responsible for his disablement, some other moral-code violation, or both and deems that Browning creates an

entire colony of them in Freaks (Norden, 1994, p. 115). But is this the case? For most of the film, the freaks are portrayed as dignified and sensitive people who come together in a crisis, a clear contrast to the vanity and stupid preening of Cleopatra and Hercules, the normal performers (Fearnow, p. 182) a depiction which clearly aligns the viewer with the freaks. Certainly, as per Nordens definition, Cleopatra and Hercules violation of the freak code (offend one, offend us all) partially contributes to the group morphing into obsessive avengers, but it ignores the fact that Cleopatra and Hercules are actually trying to poison Hans. Subsequently, the audience is so abhorred by the behaviour of Cleopatra and Hercules towards the freaks that the act of revenge is seen more as an act of self defence, empowerment and/or karma, rather than just being bitter at the world for some perceived slight. Another criticism levelled at Freaks is that it utilises the stereotype of disabled person as sinister or evil (Barnes, 1992) and that the use of characters with physical and/or mental impairments is done solely to enhance the horror aspect of the film. This criticism is somewhat warranted, however one needs to examine the film in context for this to be a fair assessment. The film was produced in an era where horror was all the rage, with popular films such as Frankenstein, Dracula and their ilk regularly utilising elements such as physical disfigurement, mental impairment and other disabling imagery to provoke fear (Safran, 1998). Naturally, with Freaks producer Irving Thalberg wanting to produce something that would out-horror Frankenstein (Norden, 1994), it is almost inevitable that the film would turn out to be a notorious exhibition of human deformity (Fearnow, p. 42). In fact, the studio (MGM) quite overtly utilised this imagery in its marketing campaign, with catchcries of creatures of the abyss, strange children of the shadows and nightmare shapes in the dark used to entice audiences. Additionally, it could be argued that the revenge scene (involving limbless, gnarled bodies crawling en masse through the dark, stormy night with knives towards their screaming victims) contributes to this enduring stereotype of disabled as sinister/evil but at the end of the day its a horror film such a scene would be terrifying whether the assailants were able-bodied or disabled. In fact, when examining the film overall, it could well be argued that the able-bodied, normal characters Cleopatra, Hercules and the like are actually the embodiments of evil in Freaks. Finally, some argue that the use of actual sideshow workers with physical and/or mental impairments in Freaks makes it merely a celluloid version of a circus freak show, with the freaks being portrayed as the stereotypical curio (Barnes, 1992) or exotic spectacles of otherness (Ferri, Connor, Solis, Valle & Volpitta, 2005, p. 63). To some extent this is true, as it seems that many of the freaks are slotted into inconsequential scenes merely to showcase their difference. However, this argument fails to note that many of these scenes provide the audience with an opportunity for sanctioned staring that would be impossible in real life (Hall & Minnes, 1999). This sanctioned staring is of particular importance given that Browning does well to portray the normalcy of the characters with impairments. For example, Frieda, a woman of short stature, is shown hanging out her washing and discussing relationship issues with Venus, the animal trainer. Meanwhile, Violet Hilton bickers with the fianc of Daisy (her conjoined twin sister) about the same things that most in-laws would bicker about the fact that they are joined at the hip has very little bearing on the situation. In addition, there are powerful messages that are conveyed in many of these seemingly irrelevant scenes showcasing day-to-day life. For example, there is a poignant scene involving Prince Randian, a man with no arms and no legs, who is listening to the self-promoting, patronising ramblings of one of the strong men. As the strong man launches into his monologue, Prince Randian calmly opens a matchbox and lights a match and cigarette with only his mouth. When the strong man finishes his monologue and starts to walk off, Prince Randian dryly calls after him, Can you do anything with your eyebrows?. Later in the movie, the same strong man confronts Frances OConnor, a woman with no arms. Again, as the strong man launches into his monologue, Frances calmly picks up a fork to eat with then takes a sip from her wine glass using her foot. Although it could be argued that these snippets merely reinforce the curio stereotype, the juxtaposition of the loud and patronising ablebodied man with the quiet, unassuming freaks actually makes one question who the freaks really are. USING FREAKS TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT INCLUSION Viewing Freaks through 21st century eyes is an interesting experience, and one which would benefit all adults if it were paired with appropriate deconstruction and discussion.

To begin with, the very fact that Browning uses actual performers with physical and/or mental impairments is something that modern audiences (and the film and television industry) could learn a lot from. Modern audiences are conditioned to expect the Dustin Hoffmans and Tom Hanks of the world to win Oscars for their brave method-acting portrayals of people with disabilities. However, as argued by Whittington-Walsh (2002), a film would never be made today casting Anthony Hopkins, garnished in makeup, portraying Nelson Mandela it would be a moral outrage, and yet this continues to happen to the most marginalised and oppressed group (p.696). In this sense, Freaks was before its time (and, perhaps, our time) in that performers with physical and/or mental impairments were there on the screen, giving performances akin to their able-bodied peers. This act in itself speaks volumes. Following on from this, the use of actual performers with physical and/or mental impairments, in combination with Brownings human portrayal of the freaks provides an opportunity for audiences to positively engage in sanctioned staring (Hall and Minnes, 1999), thus potentially breaking down any misconceptions borne of ignorance. Given that Browning realistically portrays the freaks as dignified and sensitive people (Fearnow, p. 182) who experience the range of normal human emotions including love, lust, jealousy, sorrow, excitement and joy in a wide variety of normal human situations, the audience is able to identify strongly with the characters, rather than viewing them as curios or as cinematic objects of terror. Finally, the film somewhat acts as a mirror on society, and the abhorrent behaviour of the ablebodied, normal people towards the freaks throughout the film is so pronounced that it makes one self-reflect on their own attitudes, beliefs and actions. From the start of the film, when the landowners assistant recounts in horror his previous nights experience of the horrible, twisted things who should be smothered at birth or locked up through to Cleopatra and Hercules continual mockery of the freaks, the audience is continually peppered with narrow-minded, inhumane actions and words which are starkly contrasted with the positive representations of the freaks. This juxtaposition is so powerful, that at times it even pushes the viewer beyond mere self-reflection and into passionate advocacy. THE FINAL WORD ON FREAKS As can be seen, Freaks is a controversial film, and there are many criticisms that can be made about the way it portrays people with disabilities. This controversy in itself is a useful tool, in that it can always provoke thought and discussion about disability portrayal in film. However, looking beyond the films contextual influences and the various dramatic techniques that are employed, there is a film that pulls back the sometimes-mysterious shroud of physical and/or mental impairment and reveals a story about the human condition. Awareness of impairments almost evaporates and is replaced with character identification, and in the end, the audience is left with the impression that the only disability that the freaks have, are the attitudinal barriers of the ablebodied people around them.

REFERENCES Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. Halifax: Ryburn Publishing. Fearnow, M. (1997). The American stage and the Great Depression: a cultural history of the grotesque. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferri, B.A., Connor, D. J., Solis, S., Valle, J., & Volpitta, D. (2005). Teachers with LD: Ongoing negotiations with discourses of disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 62-78. Hall, H., & Minnes, P. (1999). Attitudes towards persons with Down Syndrome: The impact of television. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(1), 61-76. Hawkins, J. (2000). Cutting edge: Art-horror and the horrific avant-garde. Minneapolis, U.S: University of Minnesota Press.

Norden, M.F. (2007). The changing face of evil in film and television. Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi Nordern, M. F. (1994). The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Safran, S. P. (1998). The first century of disability portrayal in film: An analysis of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 467 -478. Thalburg, I.(Producer), & Browning, T (Director). (1932). Freaks [Motion picture]. U.S: MGM. Warner Home Video (Producer).(2004). Tod Brownings Freaks: The sideshow cinema [Documentary]. USA: Warner Home Video. Whittington-Walsh, F. (2002). From freaks to savants: Disability and hegemony from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) to Sling Blade (1997). Disability and Society, 16(6), 695-707.