Freaks of yester year, Freaks of today.

"By its very presence, the exceptional body seems to compel explanation, inspire representation, and incite regulation. The unexpected body fires rich, if anxious, narratives and practices that probe the contours and boundaries of what w take to be human[...]" - Rosemarie Garland Thomson, Introduction: From Wonder to Error - A Geneology of Freak Discourses in Modernity.

In Introduction: From Wonder to Error - A Geneology of Freak Discourses in Modernity Rosemarie G. Thomson sets to discuss the history and beginnings of the representation of the "other", of the abnormal body. Not necessarily setting out to pinpoint a specific date, or a specific time of representation, but rather to trace a history that can help us see its own reminiscences in today's world, and particularly in today's visual culture. At the same time, what Thomson is also tracing is the evolution or historical changes of the discourse around abnormal bodies, because this discourse is what has shaped the representations of said bodies. Thomson recognizes a certain historical ambiguity within this discourse, in which bodies considered monstrous or freaks not only inspired fear or horror but also intrigue. We can say that these bodies carried a certain kind of mysticism, which moved people to fear them but at the same time respect them; whichever it was, in the end these bodies were still misunderstood, misrepresented and [mis]used. It is this fear of the unknown, this mystique surrounding freaks and their bodies what, in Thomson’s eyes, has driven a wide array of popular representation. I think a lot of it is also a social anxiety to classify, to differentiate and place each other within the norm, belonging to a group. Thomson points out that in many cases, freaks are represented as carrying a meaning beyond their own existence – their presence meaning premonitions of bad things to come, warnings for characters of stories, or obstacles to conquer in the search of truth (i.e Homer and the Cyclops). Much like photographs, representations of these bodies have aimed at portraying them as carriers of a self-evident truth, a truth beyond their own existence that perhaps reassures our own existence as “normal” bodies.

Indeed there is a fascination with making a spectacle out of the “horrible”; as we have seen through out class - i.e lynching photographs, the Abu Ghraib images, and even perhaps fetal photography - films and motion pictures are not an exception within this tendency of cultural productions. Towards the end of her article, Thomson argues that a recent, or rather modern, fascination with freak shows, vaudeville/burlesque shows, and subsequent manifestations in film/cult movies, is directly related to this history of spectacle. This is certainly true, but I would argue, however, that the presence of freaks, the burlesque and the bizarre in movies is as old as the film medium itself. I am merely arguing that popular representations in film of circuses, burlesque shows and the like are not just a modern manifestation of older obsessions, bur rather modern adaptations of already established forms of cultural productions of the fascinating freaks. In a way, everything is recycled, and this includes social anxieties. One example that comes to mind is the movie Freaks, a 1932 production by Tod Browning, who is also known for directing such motion pictures as Dracula (1931) or The Unknown (1927). Tom Browning made his career on portraying the bizarre and the unknown, and Freaks has in it many of the social anxieties and discourses of which Thomson speaks of.

I think Freaks is a very interesting in the way in portrays its characters and the voice it gives them. The movie revolves around a group of “freaks” – half man/half woman, dwarfs, deformed bodies, giants, etc – who live and work in a traveling circus. They are portrayed within this environment but with an emphasis on their daily lives behind the scenes, seldom do we see them performing and seldom do we see the audience. They are the majority in the film and in a way we are welcomed to their lives. Here we learn of their fears and their strengths and of how they defend themselves as a group when threatened by others, particularly by “normals”. One of the characters, a dwarf, falls in love with a manipulative beautiful woman of the circus who decides to play with his characters for money, while the dwarfs girlfriend – another dwarf – watches him fall to this trap. The freaks plan to show him the woman’s true intentions and make him come to his senses. Sadly, it seems that in the end coming to his senses means coming to terms with the fact that there is no place for him outside of the freak world, and that no normal person will ever seriously fall in love with him. In the end, the freaks also take revenge over this woman and transform her life forever by making her into a freak, to show her what their lives have always been like and will forever be. What I think is most unique about Browning’s film, and for a movie of that time period, is it’s positive portrayal of the freaks, their commonly human qualities and problems, an most importantly the agency that they have within their own lives even in such a restricted environment. This movie shows us that as old as this obsession of representing the unknown, or undesired, might be along with it has always been recognition of the absurdity of making a spectacle of others no matter how strange or different.