No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
At the turn of the century the Protestant ethic combined with Victorian morality helped turn audiences away from 'Freaks Shows'. This act isolated the performers (who were generally labeled with a physical or mental disability) from not only the rest of society but also from the economy. However, images of people with disabilities did not disappear. The 'mainstream' film industry took over as chief exhibitors stigmatizing characters with disabilities as either violent psychotic offenders or child like savants. However, in 1932, Tod Browning resurrected the 'Freak Show' and made a remarkable film celebrating and starring actual performers from 'Freak Shows'. The film, Freaks , managed to 'normalize' the performers but was a box office and critical disaster. MGM banished the film to the vaults for twenty years, while in England it was banned for over forty. It is blamed for bringing Browning's career to an end and the stars were forced back into isolation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the criticism of Freaks by comparing and contrasting it with images of the more 'successful' mainstream films. Through this analysis I will demonstrate that the criticism for Freaks as it stands is unsupported. I argue what truly offends, shocks audiences and critics alike and the reason for the film's continued 'banishment' is not only the visibility of the actors with disabilities, but also the fact that Browning and his actors found no shame in showcasing their diversity. It is within both the criticism of the film and the mainstream films depicting characters with disabilities where the institutional rejection of diversity is found, not in the images Browning showcased.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.