Response #3- Spectacles on Spectacles in Freaks (1932)

Rachel Adams discusses the history and attraction to sideshow cinema in her piece Sideshow Cinema, as well as how the 1932 film Freaks emphasized the use of spectacle cinema. As Adams writes, not only were the talent for Freaks marginalized on screen and made a spectacle of, off screen they were segregated from the other talent, who regardless of cameras rolling, still thought of them as “freaks”.  Freaks indeed is fueled by spectacles, peppered with pointless clips of the talent cast as freaks, which seem to bare no significance to the story other than to be gaped at.  

We are shown two women enjoying lunch, eating with their feet, we see a man rolling a cigarette with his feet, and more such clips that are for pure shock value. In fact the only real characters that bare any significance to the story are almost entirely made up of the talent not cast as “freaks”. The only “freaks” that play a real role in the story are Hans and Frieda, even though the cast is made up of many more talent. All the other individuals playing “freaks” are only shown in clips emphasizing their supposed “freakiness”. Adam’s writes, “ like the cinema of attractions, early portions of Freaks are characterized by an aesthetic of spectacle that is only heightened by the stiff, self-conscious performances of many of the disabled actors” (p. 67). This stiffness that Adam discusses is very apparent, and it brings a sinister aspect to a film that is supposed to be just a story, since it is clear that in real life, these actors were still very much considered to be freaks and treated as such. It adds an unfortunate but believable aspect to their performances that is both unsettling and upsetting.

While the beginning of the film is infiltrated with these meaningless and exploitative clips of the disabled talent, it still continues as a relatively steady pace through out the rest of the film. Where talent with no legs are seen dragging themselves across the set, giving the audience yet another chance to gape at them. The ending of the film has critics divided on whether the “freaks” are shown in the end to indeed be “dirty, slimy, freaks” as Cleopatra claims they are, or whether they are shown to have out-tricked the audience and those in the circus who treated them so poorly. Regardless of whether Cleopatra finally gets what she deserves, the “freaks” are still shown in an exploitative manner, even in the end as they are seen crawling through the mud in the dark to exact revenge on Cleopatra.

Freaks is all about spectacles and is the epitome of spectacle cinema because it took individuals that were already seen as spectacles, and put them in situations that emphasized their differences and made them even more of a spectacle. The time period and the way people with disabilities were treated back then is very apparent in Freaks and Adams does a nice job of providing some historical insight into that time period. The discomfort of the actors with disabilities is extremely apparent and the manner in which they were consistently splashed across the screen in ways that highlighted their disabilities made the film the ultimate spectacle. Although uncomfortable and upsetting to watch, the film Freaks demonstrates the popularity of spectacle cinema during the 1930’s and its relationship with fear and horror of the unknown or different.