Freaks is a 1932 American MGM pre-Code horror film produced and directed by Tod Browning. The original version of the film, running 90 minutes, was considered too shocking to be released, so several scenes were cut, resulting in an abridged runtime of 64 minutes. The original version no longer exists. The film is based on elements from the short story "Spurs" by Tod Robbins.
Despite the extensive cuts, the film was still negatively received by audiences, recording a loss of $164,000, and remained an object of extreme controversy. Today, the scenes that were removed are considered lost. Browning, famed at the time for his collaborations with Lon Chaney and for directing Bela Lugosi in Dracula (1931), had trouble finding work afterward and this effectively brought his career to an early close. "Freaks" became the only MGM film ever to be pulled from release before completing its domestic engagements. Because the film was thought to be overly exploitative, it was banned in the United Kingdom for 30 years. A number of contemporary reviews were not only highly critical of the film, but expressed outrage and revulsion. Harrison's Reports wrote that "Any one who considers this entertainment should be placed in the pathological ward in some hospital." In The Kansas City Star, John C. Moffitt wrote, "There is no excuse for this picture. It took a weak mind to produce it and it takes a strong stomach to look at it." The Hollywood Reporter called it an "outrageous onslaught upon the feelings, the senses, the brains and the stomachs of an audience." Variety also published a negative review, writing that the film was "sumptuously produced, admirably directed, and no cost was spared, but Metro heads failed to realize that even with a different sort of offering the story is still important. Here the story is not sufficiently strong to get and hold the interest, partly because interest cannot easily be gained for too fantastic a romance." The review went on to state that the story "does not thrill and at the same time does not please, since it is impossible for the normal man or woman to sympathize with the aspiring midget. And only in such a case will the story appeal." Not all reviews were as harsh. The New York Times called it "excellent at times and horrible, in the strict meaning of the word, at others" as well as "a picture not to be easily forgotten." The New York Herald Tribune wrote that it was "obviously an unhealthy and generally disagreeable work," but that "in some strange way, the picture is not only exciting, but even occasionally touching." John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a positive review, calling it "a little gem" that "stands in a class by itself, and probably won't be forgotten in a hurry by those who see it." He found its "perfectly plausible story" a key to the effectiveness of its horror, writing that "It's a chilling notion to imagine these weird beings, with their own lives and vanities and passions, all allied in a bitter enmity against us." Addressing the controversial subject matter, Mosher stated: "if the poor things themselves can be displayed in the basement of Madison Square Garden, pictures of them might as well be shown in the Rialto. They may hereafter even be regarded in the flesh with a new dread bordering on respect."

Q: How was this film received?
A: Despite the extensive cuts, the film was still negatively received by audiences,

Q: What did people not like about it?
A: John C. Moffitt wrote, "There is no excuse for this picture. It took a weak mind to produce it and it takes a strong stomach to look at it.

Q: Was there any specific thing about the film that people didn't like?
A: the story "does not thrill and at the same time does not please, since it is impossible for the normal man or woman to sympathize with the aspiring midget.

Q: Who did the film exploit?
A: unknown

Q: What else did critics have to say?
A: Metro heads failed to realize that even with a different sort of offering the story is still important.

Q: Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
A: Not all reviews were as harsh. The New York Times called it "excellent at times and horrible,

Q: What was the cost of the film to produce?
A: unknown
Did anyone like the film?
Not all reviews were as harsh. The New York Times called it "excellent at times and horrible, The New York Times New York Herald Tribune The New Yorker wrote a positive review, calling it "a little gem" that "stands in a class by itself, and probably won't be forgotten in a hurry John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a positive review, calling it "a little gem"
John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a positive review, calling it "a little gem"