Throughout this essay, I am going to be exploring the theory of the other and the process of othering. When defining the other, Alexander Hinton explains the process of othering. He describes this process by distinguishing between essentializing others, which ‘is creating the thought that others are considered filthy, impure and even animalistic and are therefore symbolically different and separate from the in-group’(Hinton, 2002) and annihilating others, which ‘is the literal and physical destruction of the out-group’ (Hinton, 2002). This simply explains that by ‘othering’, we mean any action that divides an individual or group as something different and not one of us. I will then take this information and analyse the way in which groups of both physically and mentally impaired people were and still are represented as ‘freaks’, a ‘highly visible signifier of social disorder’ (Wright, 2013), and portrayed as monsters through the work of horror films and Tv shows. Specifically, I will be analysing the film ‘freaks’ directed by Tod Browning released in 1932 and the Tv series ‘American horror story’, specifically their series ‘freak show’ released in 2014, to investigate the impact both these media texts had on its separate audiences at the time of their release.
Othering has long been a process used to create monsters in horror films because as people we fear abnormality and the unknown. The first record of othering to create monsters in horror texts is in the early 1930’s with the film ‘freaks’ directed by Todd Browning. It was said that ‘viewers were engaged through revulsion, not empathy’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002). Before this film, freaks were a ‘celebrated exotic attraction’(Larsen and Haller, 2002), and this was the case from the mid-16thcentury when deformities began to be treated as objects of interest. Crowds would gather to see deformed members of society exhibited in what was called ‘freak shows’. Freak shows were often held in fairgrounds where the freaks were put on stage and showcased to the ‘normal’ members of society. It could be said that Browning’s film was the film that put the ‘construction of freak in transition’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002) because it was released in the time ‘society had moved concretely into the age of movies and away from live attractions such as circuses and vaudeville shows’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002).
Michel Foucault’s opinion on othering is that, ‘othering is strongly connected with power and knowledge. When we “other” another group, we point out their perceived weaknesses to make ourselves look stronger or better.’ (Rismyhr Engelund, 2011). It could be said that Browning used his film making knowledge as power to expose ‘freaks’ as monsters and something to be feared. He pointed out the perceived weakness of them being outnumbered by able-bodied people and used this to make able-bodied people look stronger and better. It could even be implied Browning used the film to make it so that ‘the other has no further linkage with the main dominant culture’ (Holslag, 2015), because although there is a threat of them being equal, it would not happen due to the fact that able-bodied people are generally considered more dominant.
As the film director, Browning was in control of the way the freaks were portrayed. Browning took everyone’s view of ‘freaks’ as mysterious, interesting creatures, and used his films documentary style as power to expose footage of these ‘abnormal’ bodies enjoying daily life behind the scenes of a circus, by eating, joking and proposing marriage. He opened the movie audience’s eyes to the horror of these creatures being equal to them, having a fair shot in their society and not just being ‘freak show’ performers. ‘Disability confronts the able-bodied persons with the limits of life with the fear of deficiency, disability therefore awakens a catastrophic anxiety that in turn leads to defensive reactions of rejection, indifferent and arrogance’ Kristeva and Vanier (2011) suggest that able-bodied people see disabled people as something to be feared because although there are boundaries to prevent them from being ‘normal’, they still manage to achieve normality. In the trailer for the film Browning’s opening statement is ‘we didn’t lie to you, folks. We told you we had living, breathing, monstrosities’ (Browning 1932). This holds similar traits to the opening of a circus show which in turn holds a message that ‘freaks’ can’t ever have a place in our society and their only purpose in life should be to preform for the able-bodied.
‘The thirty-year ban on the 1932 circus horror film freaks illustrates how deeply we share cultural notions about the disabled body and people with disabilities’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002). Many viewers of the film at the time were offended by the fact that everything was ‘real’, as opposed to being ‘made up’. The open-door reviewer Diehl Letter claimed that the film was ‘revolting’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002) and went onto say they ‘would like to see as many protests as possible’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002) against the film being distributed any longer. It could be argued that this ban was societies way of ignoring the ‘problem’ and hoping it went away, like we as humans do on a daily basis with many of our personal problems. This is because once the film went away, the ‘freaks’ were still not accepted into society. The problem of where they would fit in was even more at question due to freak shows loss of ‘credibility and appeal’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002) after the film was banned.
The TV show American horror stories, series ‘freak show’ released in 2014, was a more accepted circus horror text by its audience although it used a similar concept of othering disabled people. It could be said that this is because ‘since the end of the eighteenth century the presence of monstrousness is evident in the behaviour of an individual rather than in his or her physical appearance’ (Wright, 2013). This simply says that over time, people have become educated enough to realise the way someone looks does not make them a monster, the things that go on in their minds do. This statement can also explain the decision of the director to have a main character who looks physically normal but is mentally challenged, another form of disability. The story takes place in 1952 and follows a struggling freak show where the public no longer looks upon ‘freaks’ as a form of entertainment. The series summed up, is an insight to what it was like to be a ‘freak’ around the time that ‘Freaks’ 1932 by Todd Browning was released. The main recurring theme throughout this TV series is acceptance, this is shown through the main characters; the ‘freaks’, who want to be accepted into society as equals. Moreover ‘Dandy’ a town boy who is mentally challenged, wants to become a freak.
The audience response to the trailer for ‘freak show’ was somewhat negative regarding the terminology used, with review headlines such as ‘Are you freaked out? Some people in show business want you to be’ (Sherman, 2014). It was argued that the directors aim for the show was to ‘make you associate ‘freaks’ with something ‘scary’ and ‘strange’ (Sherman, 2014) like in the early 90’s. However, upon watching the series it was quickly established this wasn’t the case and the directors took a different approach by presenting ‘freaks’, which mirrored the opinions of the present day audience. At the time the series was set, ‘an unremarkable appearance could be seen as a desirable indicator of normality’ (Wright, 2013) and the directors explored this statement through scenes, such as ‘Jimmy’ and his dad, ‘Dell’ at the bar. Jimmy wears thick leather gloves to hide his deformed hands, following a comment from Dell about how the gloves must make him sweat, he goes on to talk about his desire to fit in ‘like every other guy’ (Hemingway, 2014) without constant looks and comments from the public. Scenes like this built sympathy from the audience towards the characters whilst maintaining a reaction of fear due to the unusual imagery of the various on screen deformities that modern day audiences struggle to come to terms with.
In the 1960’s a shift occurred in the horror genre ‘from external, fantastic antagonism to internal threats’ (Bullins, 2017). Mental illness became, and still is, the ‘primary identifier for antagonists’ (Bullins, 2017) and therefore could be interpreted as the ‘explanation as to why violent characters act the way they do, even though this convention may not have any realistic evidence’ (Bullins, 2017). It is said that ‘at times of change, when existing social, cultural or religious norms are overturned, new types of human monsters come into view in order to manifest the monstrous disruption that occurs’ (Wright, 2013). Suggesting this type of othering is used to pinpoint the cause of evil behaviour in everyday life. As humans, we seek explanation for everything. This is a clear example that rather than accepting an individual as a monstrous human being, for the evil things they have done, we instead feel the need to analyse them physically and mentally to pin point the reasoning of their actions. It could be perceived that the fear and anxiety that causes humans to do this, could simply be because it allows us to create groups and distinguish them as the ‘other’, a person to be avoided and careful of.
In contrast to Browning’s work, the directors of ‘freak show’ exploited the vulnerability of ‘freaks’ in the time the series is set, as well as playing on the modern-day fears and anxieties of mentally ill people in order to appeal to the modern-day audience. This was done through one of the main characters in the series, Dandy. Dandy is introduced to the audience as a spoilt man-child who has made his mother buy out the entire box office at the freak show for just the two of them. Whilst watching the show, he offers money to buy the conjoined twins and when declined, leaves the show. Following this introduction, we get to know his up-bringing and family history which explains his emotional and psychological disturbance. Dandy’s mother, Gloria, gave him everything he wanted materialistically but raised him with no emotional connection and was therefore an absent mother. Dandy’s father, Edward, was a mentally disturbed introvert much like Dandy and madness ran in the family. Throughout the series, we see Dandy make strong effort to be accepted as one of the freaks and when this fails he begins to act out through boredom killing various people including his maid and mother. Dandy views himself as a living ‘god’ and uses his family status and wealth to manipulate the authorities. In episode 9, when he reaches the peak of his killing spree, he claims ‘I’m above the law, beyond the law, I am the law’ (Peristere, 2014). It could be proposed that this caused the audiences reaction of fear to the show as it links closely to the fact that mentally ill criminals get a lesser sentence for their crimes, and in turn, this proposes that mental illness can be used in order to justify criminal behaviour.
In conclusion, as previously mentioned; defining the ‘other’ is best described through the explanation of ‘othering’. ‘Within othering there is also a process of selfing’ (Holslag,2015) this is when a dominant culture group establishes the weaknesses of the minority group to point out the ways in which their group is stronger and more powerful. Implying that the process ‘is not born out of feelings of superiority, but quite the contrary, feelings of inferiority’ (Holslag, 2015). It has been said that ‘others are essentialized as a threat’ (Holslag, 2015), a concept reflected through the ‘other’ in both the film ‘Freaks’ 1932 and the 2014 Television series of ‘American Horror Story’.
The physically impaired in the film ‘Freaks’, were seen as threats to society, due to the fact that during the period that the film was released, society was moving on from ‘freak shows and care de viste photographs of freaks that acted as strategies for dealing with the ‘monstrous’ spectrum of human difference’ (Wright, 2013). Which meant the question of ‘where they fitted into society’ was of concern. ‘Freaks’ answered this concern with the realisation that physically impaired people were capable of being more than a ‘highly popular form of amusement’ (Wright, 2013). They were represented as being able to carry out the same everyday activities as able-bodied people, although there were boundaries to prevent them. Members of the audience ‘expected to see them on display like museum pieces or popular performers’ (Larsen and Haller, 2002), and were not accepting of the fact the physically impaired could be equal, or even possibly better than them. The fact people protested the film, leading to a ban lasting three decades shows that they were repulsed by the film and feared its shocking exposé.
The American Horror Stories TV series (2014) had two different forms of the ‘other’. The mentally impaired, who in the series were seen as a threat due to the fact that they were ‘portrayed as acting violently’ (Wilson, Nairn, Coverdale and Panana) and uncontrollable even by the law. And the physically impaired were proposed as a threat in the same way as in the film ‘freaks’, however it took a different approach on representing this to the audience. Both lots of freaks were represented as people who just wanted to be accepted in life and fit in. This created an audience response of empathy for the physically impaired, supported by the statement that ‘corporeal monstrosity began to lose its symbolic significance’ (Wright, 2013). People grew to accept the different body into society over the time period between each texts release, however for the mentally impaired, it can be said there was a factor of empathy though more horror in the audience response. While the audience sympathises with the desire to fit in, the issues raised reflect the anxieties of present issues relating to crime and punishment of a mentally ill criminal, creating a response of fear.
Overall it could be said that horror texts employ the concept of the other and represent marginalized groups like the disabled in a horrific way because ‘disability is a convenient plot device that can explain motivation for villainous or monstrous characters’ (Hall, 2016) without it being true to real life. The horror genres aim is ‘to pump up and exercise that anxiety’ however realistic it may be.
Bibliography:
Alexander L. Hinton, “The Dark Side of Modernity: Toward an Anthropology of Genocide,” in Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, ed. Alexander L. Hinton (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 6–12.
American horror story: Freak show - 4x07 ‘Test of strength’ (2014) Directed by Anthony Hemingway.
American horror story: Freak show – 4x07 ‘Tupperware party massacre’ (2014) Directed by Loni Peristere.
Bullins, J. (2017) ‘Evil or misunderstood: Depictions of mental illness in horror films’.
Freaks (1932) Directed by Tod Browning USA.
Hall, Mm. 2016, ‘Horrible Heroes: Liberating Alternative Visions of Disability in Horror’, Disability Studies Quarterty,36, 1, p. 1, Education Source, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 January 2017.
Holslag, A. (2015) ‘The process of Othering from the “social Imaginaire” to physical acts: An anthropological approach’, Genocide Studies and Prevention, 9(1), pp. 96–113. doi: 10.5038/1911-9933.9.1.1290.
Kristeva, J and Vanier, J (2011). Leur regard perce nos ombres.Paris: Fayard.
Larsen, R & Haller B. 2002, ‘Public Reception of Real Disability: The Case of Freaks’, Journal of Popular Film & Television, 29, 4, p. 164 Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 January 2017.
Rismyhr Engelund, S. (2011) ‘Introductory essay: “The Other” and “Othering”’, 14 October. Available at: https://newnarratives.wordpress.com/issue-2-the-other/other-and-othering-2/ (Accessed: 5 January 2017).
Sherman, H. (2014) ‘The Guardian: “Freak” is a slur and “Freak Show” is propagating it. Disabled people deserve better’.
Wilson, C, Nairn, R, Coverdale, J & Panana, A N D ‘Constrction Mental Illness as dangerous: a pilot study’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiarty, 33, 2, pp. 240-247, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 January 2017.
Wright, A. 2013, (Monsters in Proximity - Freaks and the Spectacle of Abnormality (Chapter 4) in Monstrosity : The Human Monster in Visual Culture: London, I.B.Tauris. (eBook)
Commentaires