Editing Freaks (1932 film) (section)

===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}}