Tod Browning’s Freaks is a horror drama from 1932, in which a conniving trapeze artist marries a sideshow performer while plotting to murder him and inherit his fortune.
The film was highly controversial at the time of its initial release due to its use of real sideshow performers, with critics arguing it exploited their physical differences for shock value. However, the film has been reappraised in more recent years, with many viewers finding its portrayal of disabled people to be sympathetic and humanising.
Classification issues
- Threat and horror
- A woman is surrounded by a gang of people wielding weapons. No explicit violence is shown, although it is subsequently implied that she has been mutilated by the gang. A man has a knife thrown into his chest and it is implied he is then attacked, although all details are masked.
- Discrimination
- Characters with physical disabilities and deformities are subject to discrimination, ridiculed and are called names. Characters with disabilities express upset at the discriminatory way people treat them.
- Additional issues
- There are mild verbal sex references, and sequences of mild violence.
Cinema classification
The film has a long and interesting history with the BBFC, initially being refused a certificate altogether when it was first submitted in 1932. At the time, the only categories available for films were U and A (the H category for horror films was introduced later that year) and the BBFC felt that the film exploited for commercial reasons the disabled people that it claimed to dignify.
It was 1952 before Freaks was submitted again, this time by a different distributor.
The new distributor wrote to the BBFC arguing for the film to be released with an X certificate, which in those days would have allowed those aged 16 and above to see the film. He wrote: “I do think that the sympathetic manner in which these characters are portrayed should go far to eliminate from the public mind the usual feeling of horror which is their first effect in circus side-shows… I do feel that the film deserves to be seen by the adult public.” However, the BBFC again determined that the film was unsuitable for classification, on the same grounds as in 1932.
The distributor appealed the decision, arguing that the exploitation of human deformity in circuses, fairgrounds and variety theatres was a fact and that hiding the subject away “behind a display of moral righteousness” made it impossible to deal with such exploitation. He went on to argue that the film’s depiction of exploitation was the very reason that it ought to be passed with an X certificate, and indicated a willingness to make “suitable cuts”.
The BBFC’s view remained that the film was unsuitable for classification, both because its theme was one of the exploitation of human deformity for commercial gain, and because many of its scenes were deemed to be extremely unpleasant. The decision to reject the film was upheld.
In May 1963, now in the hands of another distributor, the film was submitted to the BBFC for a third time. The distributor proposed a very limited and very carefully managed release, starting in only one ‘art house’ cinema in London, the Paris Pullman in Kensington, and promoted “without undue exploitation and sensationalism.” Thereafter the film would only be released outside London “in theatres of suitable reputation and standing.” The intention was to allow an adult audience to judge for itself whether the film exploited its cast or whether it was actually a plea for understanding and compassion.
The BBFC classified the film an X certificate with the caveat that “people should be warned of the nature of the film so that those to whom such sights are displeasing will not see it.” The Secretary to the Board warned that it would be undesirable “to attract people who would wish to come and see Freaks for unworthy reasons.”
Audience feedback
With its X certificate, the film finally went on release in the UK in 1963, 31 years after being made.
Upon release the film garnered fairly favourable reviews from the press. For example, the following extract from The Times on 13 June: “The point constantly being made, one way and another, is that the real monsters of this world are not physical but mental; that the strong and the beautiful may well be much more horrifying than the maimed and deformed. In this sense it is less a horror than an anti-horror film; starting with our most primitive feelings of fear and revulsion at the abnormal and the ‘unnatural’, it works us round little by little to comprehension and acceptance and drains our horror away.”
Having a fairly limited appeal, the film appeared to have little impact on the general public. One young man did write to the BBFC having been alarmed and distressed at the reaction of the largely teenage audience in his local cinema, who apparently laughed at the sight of the disabled characters. He left the film after only 20 minutes and was not there to witness the audience’s reactions to the film’s denouement and its clear message of compassion and understanding for less advantaged members of society.
Video classification
Freaks was submitted to the BBFC for video classification 1994.
It was viewed by a large number of Examiners and, perhaps unsurprisingly, divided opinion, with recommendations ranging from a possible PG to 15. It was felt by some that the actual visual content of the film did not really go beyond the PG level, although it was acknowledged that the tone and treatment of the work probably indicated that a 12 would be more appropriate.
Others argued strongly that even a 12-year-old would lack the necessary maturity and critical faculties to understand the message of the film and would most likely react with a mixture of amusement, disgust and shock. Younger viewers, it was felt, may find the film disturbing.
Ultimately, it was decided that the film was most appropriately classified at 15 – primarily due to the intensity of the climactic scene in which the ‘freaks’ take their revenge on the bullying strongman Hercules. The BBFC felt that the way the disabled characters were depicted during this highly charged and impactful sequence momentarily (and probably unintentionally) risked turning the audience’s feelings of sympathy to feelings of fear, apprehension and possibly even disgust. The conclusion was that by placing the work at 15 the viewer was expected to have sufficient maturity and understanding to accept this sequence as part of the narrative and not an attempt to sensationalise or exploit the actors and their disabilities.
Subsequent submissions
In 2001 the film was resubmitted ahead of a new theatrical release, and was classified 12.
There was still some discussion as to whether the film should remain at 15, but the argument for making the film accessible to a younger audience prevailed, with one Examiner summing up the general feeling by stating: “It is a 1930's film and reflects social prejudices about difference. The film should be viewed in its historical context. As a BFI classic it will possibly be seen by film students and arthouse crowds. If we consider human rights today and the conscious social policies about mainstream inclusion of the disabled, there is every reason to support a young teen audience for this film. Social attitudes about tolerance and understanding build up slowly, there is no magic switched on the day one turns 15 or 18. This is an extremely interesting film which can help formulate the young Brit’s tolerance to physically challenged people.”
The 12 was converted to a 12A (which replaced the 12 cinema rating in 2002) for another cinema re-release in 2015, and in 2023 the film was classified 12 on video with the content advice ‘moderate threat, discrimination’.
