How does Freaks explore the notion of subversives bodies?

In 1932, film director, Tod Browning had produced a breath-taking film entitled "Freaks". Commissioned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (MGM), "Freaks" is a straightforward horror film which gives an unprecedented idea into the world of the side show. By featuring a large cast of genuine freak show artistes, the film gathers a reputation as a perverse masterpiece and has been read as a commentary on the studio system that treats all its talent like sideshow performers, as trashy exploitation, as a poignant fairy tale, as a grim morality play. Indeed, a film as such has shocked the audience with affect of nausea, so much so that not only its own studio withdrew it, the film also was banned outright in Britain and other countries, languishing in vaults for more than thirty years until it was premiered anew in 1962. Judging from this impact, it is interesting to investigate why the production of "Freaks" which fetches a great deal in the exploitation of handicaps for a profit would occur in the first place, considering that there was this Motion Production Code in position to govern the content of the film. How does Freaks explore the notion of subversive bodies and why was this possible in the pre-code period?

Therefore, in this essay, I attempt to discuss the Pre-code Hollywood era. Next, questioning the nature of the film "Freaks", I describe how "Freaks was able to subvert an established film regulation in order to portray the possibility of its existence in that period.

First and foremost, the "Pre-Code Hollywood era" refers to a roughly 5 years period in film history, beginning with the widespread adoption of sound in 1929 and ending on July 1, 1934, with the inauguration of the Production Code Administration and a policy of rigid censorship (Lasalle 2005). The reason why it is called "Pre-code" is because during the period, there was, in fact, an existence of a Production Code-a code of ethics and practices which sought to determine what the studio could portray on screen (Lasalle 2005). Matthew Bernstein, in his book, Controlling Hollywood: censorship and regulation in the studio era (1999 pg 88) details 3 functions of this production code which are: (1) To mediate points of social conflict between the industry trade association between industry and various external regulatory agencies, (2) To institute censorship to stave off the passage of regulatory legislation and (3) help producers avoid interference by state agencies in the distribution and exhibition of features. In short, the code basically contained a set of "General Principles" and a list of "Particular Applications".

Such a code was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. (MPPDA) in March 1930 where its administrators relied heavily on their knowledge of the practices of the various national, state and municipal censor boards in developing the detailed operation of the code (Maltby 2003). However, in an effort to function the code's administration of censorship at the level of representation, the production code was just blithely ignored and received much less attention for a variety of reasons (LaSalle 2005). In asking why a film like "Freaks" could explore the notion of subversive bodies to exist in the pre-code Hollywood period, we begin to investigate some of the reasons.

Firstly, because the production code itself was based upon a list of guidelines, "the "Don'ts and Becarefuls of 1927" that was derived of an analysis made by censor board (which was made up of members from the Women's and Protestant groups as according to Garth Jowett's "The democratic Art" in 1976) over a period of several years (Jacobs 1991), the agreements that underlay the code have often been blamed for Hollywood's lack of realism (Maltby 2003). To explain this, the impracticability of the code can be seen here when instead of attempting to improve the quality of the film, the code has the interest only in the concern for the widespread conviction that children would be "coached" in sophisticated, violent, or antisocial behaviour through their attendance at motion picture (Maltby 2003). Indeed, narrow, unenlightened and self-interest motive behind the effort in the construction of this code did not impress the public. The public did not like

Secondly, fingers could also be pointed to the governments for their political timidity. To illustrate this, being in authority, the government could easily enforce the code's censorship guidelines; however, pressure was constantly and invisibly exerted throughout the production process (Bernstein, 1999, pg 96). That is, an explanation of the rhetoric manifestation or "work" of censorship involves not an examination of specific cases but a conception of the industry as the site of a discursive logic.

This possibly was due to the need to compromise for 2 main purposes: (1) for economic advantage and, (2) to serve the industry's political interest (Bernstein, 1999, pg 88). In elaboration, firstly, for the economic benefit, because foreign revenue consistently accounted for about 35% of Hollywood's gross income (Bernstein, 1999, pg 116), the domination of the market of the world would, at least, depend on the external profit they could get from other countries. Secondly, for the industry's political intention, this was a strategy as a defence against external treat (Hays, 1955, pg 343). In producing the film, not only the governments would want to persuade the domestic audience that its product were neither morally nor economically damaging, they also wanted to convince foreign censors and trade representatives that its outage was culturally inoffensive and ideologically neutral (Ellwood and Krows, 1994). In short, the integration of foreign and domestic matters was a necessary logical step toward greater bureaucratic efficiency (Wilson, 1928).

Debating about economic, we must not forget that the introduction of the Code was at the time when the Great Depression intervened the country. Major studio companies had learned by then that in order to seek income, the trade negotiations could not be divorced from the issue of motion picture content (Bernstein 1999, pg 121). For survival sake, they had to continue producing films because they understand that the advertising power of the movies was widely recognised to being able to stimulate consumer demand besides giving them a privileged standing within the institutions of capitalist enterprise as fashion leaders and trendsetters (Eckert, 1978).
Subsequently, what they eventually did was to integrate self-regulation as part of their film production under their system (Bernstein, 1999, pg 99). Self-regulation was a function of the interplay between the film industry and a loose coalition of reform groups and state regulatory agencies whereby the industry censors (such as reflecting changes of narrative and requesting revisions in scripts) generally in consultation only with writers, directors, and producers. In elaboration, in the production of "Freaks", not only MPPDA was the one who had opinions, MGM executives also made a fuss about Browning's film especially in the selection casting choices (Klein, 2009) However, neither MPPDA's complaints nor those of studio members could stop the head of MGM, Irving Thalberg, who fascinated a lot of Browning's work, from completing the film. The determination of Thalberg not to comply with others' conflicting suggestions proved how much he loved regulating the film in this own way.

Therefore, how this being carried out was through a use of indirect modes of representation (Bernstein, 199, pg 94). In this case, in the production of a film, what would be done was that the directors would seek to "reduce" ambiguity wherever possible and to negotiate how explicit films could be. This could be accomplished with 3 methods: (1) From images as in a construction of blatantly scenes or sequences, (2) From language as in the treatment of dialogue and (3) From sound as in the usage of music to imply the intended meaning. In short, the studio just strove to find some ways of suggestion of what that could not be directly filmed even though the outcome of this was that industry makes films which do not clarify the explanatory status and utility of the idea of the industry in the analysis of films (Bernstein, 199, pg 94).

According to the code from MPPDA, adultery and illicit sex could not be shown explicitly or come along with a number of related actions such as seduction and money changing hands (Bernstein, 1999, pg97).In "Freaks", there are a number of deviant sex scenes such as Cleopatra's salacious dropping of her cloak to tempt the midget Hans, a kiss given to one Siamese twin that's clearly felt by the other, a lustful look from hermaphrodite Josephine at Hercules that triggers a brutal punch in the face (Vieira, 1993).To exemplify the indirect modes of representation in investigating how it explores the notion of subversive bodies, Tod Browning, maintained time-word melodramatic convention to portray the entire action. In a construction of blatantly scenes and sequences through the use images, Browning made sure the scene was not too erotic or too suggestive-when it was about to cross the line, the film was cut into another scene. To encourage the elision or effacement of sensitive subjects, Browning did a great job in allowing the audiences a relatively free rein to impose his or her desires upon the partially completed or displaced images on the screen. In this case, explicit sex events was not shown on screen and offensive ideas survived though it came at the price of an instability of meaning (Bernstein, 199, pg 94)

However, a large part of the film "Freaks" has deliberately crossed the line, subverting the film regulation. In the MPPDA archive, there are 2 codes which state:

"there should be no dialogue or scenes indicating that all , or a majority of the members of
any professional group , are unethical, immoral, given to the criminal activities and the like"
and

"where a given member of any profession is to be a heavy or unsympathetic character, this
should be off-set showing upright members of the same profession condemning the
unethical acts or conduct of the heavy or unsympathetic character"

In explanation, Tod Browning , in this case, has literally and directly emphasized the clear mode of unethical and immoral representation in "Freaks". The film depicted the ordinary characters, Cleopatra and Hercules, to be the ones who were wicked. For example, in the wedding banquette scene, Browning had both of them engaged evidently in some immoral activities. In the treatment of dialogue, utterances such as "You dirty slimy freaks, FREAKS, FREAKS!!!" and "Must Mama take you horsy back ride?" could be heard. As of the image wise, we could notice a midget, Hans, being lifted up and passed around to be toyed like a baby. Apparently, Browning had the intention to display the great humiliation helplessly taken by the freak.

Inevitably, "Freaks" abounds extensively with subversions of conventional morality, emphasising particularly on physical deformity by simultaneously titillating and terrorizing audiences with tableaux of a subculture populated by the physically "abnormal" (Vieira, 1993). The marketing strategy for it was rather demoralizing: Instead of clueing the potential audience in that the film was going to be sympathetic, to show malformed human beings in a more positive light, they came up film title like "FREAKS" and with such gems as "Can a full grown woman truly love a MIDGET?" and "We'll Make Her One of Us!' (Lorefice, 2002).

Perhaps Robert Sklar was correct when in his book, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies, that he mentioned:

"Hollywood's movie-makers perpetrated one of the most remarkable challenges to
traditional values in the history of mass commercial entertainment. The movies called into
question sexual propriety, social decorum and the institutions of law and order."

To conclude, "Freaks" explored the notion of subversive bodies by means of its film representations that exploited the disables'' physical differences as a method and for horrifying the primarily able-bodied audience under the self-regulating production system that enabled the film to exist in the Pre-Code era. Pre-code might be a time of an unfiltered expression of how people felt about life whereby true voice without the countervailing influence of censorship was possible; we may need to know that though "Freaks" might have successfully assaulted and horrified the contemporary audiences, who were accustomed to the conventions of the freak show, it was possible also that the disabled actors were shot for a quaint tale of love and revenge. Perhaps Browning was not an exploiter after all. Perhaps he was just making his film for the wrong audience.

Bibliography

Characterization of Newspapers Editors , Reporters and Publishers in Motion Picture," Reel 12, MPPDA Achieve

Eckert, Charles (1978), "the Carol Lombard in Macy's Window

Ellwood, David W and Krows, Robert , (1994)"Hollywood in EuropeL Experience of a Cultural Hemogomy" Amsterdam VU University Press, pg 68-93

Hays, Will, (1955), "Momoirs, pg 343, New York Doubleday

Jacobs, lea, (1991)" The Wages of Sin: Censorship and Fallen women Film, 1928-1942, University of Wisconsis Pressm Madison, Chp 5

Jowett, Garth, Film, (1976), "The democratic Art", Little Brown, Boston

Klein, Amanda (2009) , Teaching Tod Browning's FREAKS, Viewed 3rd June 2010, http://judgmentalobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/teaching-tod-brownings-freaks/
Lasalle, Mick (2005), Pre-Code Hollywood, Viewed 3rd June 2010, http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp

Lorefice, Mike, (2002), "Freaks", Viewed 3rd June 2010, http://www.metalasylum.com/ragingbull/movies/freaks.html

Maltby, Richard (2003), More Sinned Against than Sinning: The Fabrications of "Pre-Code Cinema", Viewed 2nd June 2010, http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/29/pre_code_cinema.html

Norden, Martin F. The Cinema of Isolation: A History of Physical Disability in the Movies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1994

Vieira, Mark A, (1993), Todd Browning's Freak: Production notes and analysis, Viewed 4th June 2010, http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/32/32freaks.php

Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies, Random House, New York, 1975, p. 175

Wilson, John, V, memo to Carl Milliken, November 23, 1928, California Pffice File, Reel 4 MPPDA Archive