Editing Freaks (1932 film) (section)

==Analysis and themes==
===Class conflict===
Film critic Melvin Matthews has interpreted ''Freaks'' within the context of the [[Great Depression]], writing that it "is essentially a story of the little people (average Americans) versus the big people (the rich and businessmen). The film makes it clear that the big people, personified by Cleopatra and Hercules, scorn the Freaks. Such a disdainful attitude was reflected in the real-life social outlook of some business tycoons during the Depression."{{sfn|Matthews|2009|p=58}} Film studies academic Jennifer Peterson similarly identifies ''Freaks'' as an example of an "outsider film".{{sfn|Peterson|2009|p=37}} Historian Jane Nicholas suggests that the film's conclusion, in which the circus performers mutilate Cleopatra whilst chanting "one of us", is reinforcing the freaks' social currency: "It is interesting that a statement that reads as one of inclusion is often cited as one that embodies horror in the film. What does it mean to be 'one of us'? The chilling horror of the chant 'one of us' reveals why the freak show persists."{{sfn|Nicholas|2018|p=204}}

In the book ''Midnight Movies'' (1991), critics J. Hoberman and [[Jonathan Rosenbaum]] compare ''Freaks'' to ''[[Gold Diggers of 1933]]'', writing that the former is "almost literally dealing with the same thing [class disparity]...&nbsp;but more directly—because the end product isn't just putting on a show, but slaves breaking their chains and triumphing over their masters. ''Freaks'' is asking a Depression audience to identify not with the Beautiful People, but with sideshow mutations, a total underclass."{{sfn|Hoberman|Rosenbaum|1991|p=306}}

John Stanley, longtime publisher of the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'', describes the film as "A Classic of the Grotesque" in ''Creature Features''.<ref>{{cite book|first=John|last=Stanley|title=Creature Features: The Science Fiction, Fantasy And Horror Movie Guide|publisher=[[Berkley Books]]|location=New York City|isbn=9780425175170|date=2000}}</ref>

===Disability and eugenics===
[[File:Wallace Ford, Johnny Eck, and Leila Hyams in Freaks.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1|Critic Jon Towlson notes that the everyday interaction between the able-bodied and disabled circus performers serves to uphold an anti-[[eugenics]] sentiment.]]
The film's depiction of [[disability|people with disabilities]] has been a significant point of analysis amongst film critics and scholars.{{sfn|Towlson|2014|pages=22–25}}{{sfn|Smith|2012|pages=88–92}} In his book ''Subversive Horror Cinema: Countercultural Messages of Films from Frankenstein to the Present'' (2014), critic Jon Towlson proposes that ''Freaks'' exemplifies an anti-[[eugenics]] sentiment.{{sfn|Towlson|2014|pages=22–25}} In presenting this idea, Towlson cites vignette sequences that make up the beginning of the film, largely consisting of the freaks in the context of their sideshow, before Browning "begins to undercut the voyeuristic aspects of the traditional freakshow by showing the freaks engaged in the activities of everyday life, dispelling the initial shock and revulsion, and encouraging the viewer to see the freaks as individuals who have overcome their disabilities."{{sfn|Towlson|2014|p=25}}

Towlson also notes that the freaks' everyday interactions with the able-bodied sideshow performers, such as Phroso, Roscoe, and Venus, who treat the freaks as equals and friends, further blurs the distinction between the able-bodied and disabled members of the circus, and that the physically beautiful characters—such as trapeze artist Cleopatra—are the ones who are vindictive, supremacist, and immoral.{{sfn|Towlson|2014|pages=25–26}} He further argues that the implied sexuality in the film—such as the implication that the conjoined twin sisters (played by [[Daisy and Violet Hilton]]) carry on their own separate sex lives{{sfn|Hartzman|2006|p=169}}—is an affront to the eugenic stance against reproduction and sexual activity among the "physically unfit."{{sfn|Towlson|2014|p=29}} Towlson ultimately concludes that this subversion of character exemplifies a stark opposition to the core belief of eugenics, which is that physical appearance is equated with internal worth.{{sfn|Towlson|2014|p=25}}

Angela Smith, a scholar of film and disability, similarly notes that ''Freaks'' presents numerous scenes in which the freaks engage in routine and ordinary domestic behavior.{{sfn|Smith|2012|p=89}} Among them, Smith cites the freaks' celebration of the birth of the Bearded Lady's baby, and the film's key dinner party sequence in which Cleopatra grows enraged when the freaks sing "We accept her, we accept her, one of us, one of us" as a welcoming song.{{sfn|Smith|2012|pages=89–90}} Film scholars Martin Norden and Madeleine Cahill, however, question Browning's intention of the film's final revenge sequence, in which the freaks mutilate the able-bodied, morally cruel Cleopatra.{{sfn|Norden|Cahill|2000|pages=163–165}} "The implications of the violence against [Cleopatra] are far from clear," they write. "Members of a traditionally disempowered minority use their collective force to disempower a majority member—turn her into one of them, in effect—leading us to wonder if she is truly disempowered or empowered in a new way. Browning's ambiguity on this point only enhances the film's unsettling properties."{{sfn|Norden|Cahill|2000|p=164}}

===Status as a horror film===
Some critics, such as John Thomas and [[Raymond Durgnat]], have noted that ''Freaks'' does not fully embody the genre.{{sfn|Hawkins|2000|p=150}} Thomas wrote in ''[[Film Quarterly]]'' that ''Freaks'' would "disappoint no one but the mindless children who consume most horror films...&nbsp;Certainly it is macabre...&nbsp;But the point is that ''Freaks'' is not really a horror film at all, though it contains some horrifying sequences."{{sfn|Thomas|1964|p=59}} Durgnat made a similar observation, writing that, like the films of [[Luis Buñuel]], its shock value "mingles with moments which seem shallow, but by the end of the film one begins to catch their mood, a calm, cold combination of [[Grand Guignol|guignol]] and eerily matter-of-fact."{{sfn|Hawkins|2000|p=150}}

Film-studies scholar Joan Hawkins describes the evolution of how the film's genre was perceived, noting that it "started as a mainstream horror film that migrated into the [[exploitation film|exploitation]] arena before finally being recuperated as an [[avant-garde]] or art project."{{sfn|Hawkins|2000|p=167}} Hawkins notes that Browning inverts the audience's expectations, demonstrating that it is "the ordinary, the apparently normal, the beautiful which horrify—the monstrous and distorted which compel our respect, our sympathy, ultimately our affection."{{sfn|Hawkins|1996|p=267}} Smith writes that the inclusion of ''Freaks'' within the horror genre "forces our reconsideration of the genre's status [and] challenges readings in which all horror movies are seen to use monstrous bodies to the same effects."{{sfn|Smith|2012|p=117}} Film theorist Eugenie Brinkema suggests that ''Freaks'' functions as a horror film "not because Cleo is mutilated and Hercules killed, all lightning and dark shadows—no, ''Freaks'' is a horror film because the gaze itself is horrific, because locating the gaze is a work in terror."{{sfn|Brinkema|2008|p=166}}