What do you think?
Rate this book
Film and Culture Series
Hideous Progeny: Disability, Eugenics, and Classic Horror Cinema
Twisted bodies, deformed faces, aberrant behavior, and abnormal desires characterized the hideous creatures of classic Hollywood horror, which thrilled audiences with their sheer grotesqueness. Most critics have interpreted these traits as symptoms of sexual repression or as metaphors for other kinds of marginalized identities, yet Angela M. Smith conducts a richer investigation into the period's social and cultural preoccupations. She finds instead a fascination with eugenics and physical and cognitive debility in the narrative and spectacle of classic 1930s horror, heightened by the viewer's desire for visions of vulnerability and transformation.
Reading such films as Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), Freaks (1932), and Mad Love (1935) against early-twentieth-century disability discourse and propaganda on racial and biological purity, Smith showcases classic horror's dependence on the narratives of eugenics and physiognomics. She also notes the genre's conflicted and often contradictory visualizations. Smith ultimately locates an indictment of biological determinism in filmmakers' visceral treatments, which take the impossibility of racial improvement and bodily perfection to sensationalistic heights. Playing up the artifice and conventions of disabled monsters, filmmakers exploited the fears and yearnings of their audience, accentuating both the perversity of the medical and scientific gaze and the debilitating experience of watching horror. Classic horror films therefore encourage empathy with the disabled monster, offering captive viewers an unsettling encounter with their own impairment. Smith's work profoundly advances cinema and disability studies, in addition to general histories concerning the construction of social and political attitudes toward the Other.
Reading such films as Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), Freaks (1932), and Mad Love (1935) against early-twentieth-century disability discourse and propaganda on racial and biological purity, Smith showcases classic horror's dependence on the narratives of eugenics and physiognomics. She also notes the genre's conflicted and often contradictory visualizations. Smith ultimately locates an indictment of biological determinism in filmmakers' visceral treatments, which take the impossibility of racial improvement and bodily perfection to sensationalistic heights. Playing up the artifice and conventions of disabled monsters, filmmakers exploited the fears and yearnings of their audience, accentuating both the perversity of the medical and scientific gaze and the debilitating experience of watching horror. Classic horror films therefore encourage empathy with the disabled monster, offering captive viewers an unsettling encounter with their own impairment. Smith's work profoundly advances cinema and disability studies, in addition to general histories concerning the construction of social and political attitudes toward the Other.
368 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 30, 2012
Surprisingly engaging and even more disturbing, Hiedeous Progeny looks at classic horror films of the 30s in the context of eugenic ideas and practices going on at the time. Although I was always aware that eugenics were popular before WWII--ideas that we would associate with Nazis weren't uncommon--it's still incredibly disturbing to realize just what kind of ideas were discussed as being good for mankind.
The book notes how movies about eugenics, like stories about a couple that ignores their doctor's warnings about their inferior genetic make-up, and wind up regretting it (their doctor lets their baby die for the good of everyone), that were relegated to the category of "health film," thus suggesting that discussion of eugenics be confined to the "experts." Experts that sounded a lot like the mad scientists popular in movies at the time. It was taken for granted that looking at disabled people was harmful in itself--the idea that the horror a viewer felt when looking at a disabled person was their problem that they should get over through familiarity just didn't come up except in horror movies.
The movies discussed often have ambiguous meanings--they can be equally described as ableist and anti-eugenic. But I'll never again look at them the same way.
The book notes how movies about eugenics, like stories about a couple that ignores their doctor's warnings about their inferior genetic make-up, and wind up regretting it (their doctor lets their baby die for the good of everyone), that were relegated to the category of "health film," thus suggesting that discussion of eugenics be confined to the "experts." Experts that sounded a lot like the mad scientists popular in movies at the time. It was taken for granted that looking at disabled people was harmful in itself--the idea that the horror a viewer felt when looking at a disabled person was their problem that they should get over through familiarity just didn't come up except in horror movies.
The movies discussed often have ambiguous meanings--they can be equally described as ableist and anti-eugenic. But I'll never again look at them the same way.
November 7, 2022
Hideous Progeny was my book of choice for this Halloween season. The author of the text, Angela Smith, clearly loves thinking about horror, and her enthusiasm for the material radiates through every chapter. Reading it was a lot of fun, but it also took some effort – this is an academic text, written for an academic audience, and Smith is well-versed in literary criticism, film theory, and post-modern philosophy.
The book explores a selection of horror films produced in the 1930s, a decade considered by many to be the heyday of classic horror cinema. Smith situates these films historically and culturally against the backdrop of the eugenics and Social Darwinist movements of the 19th and 20th-centuries. Some of the films discussed in Hideous Progeny include Frankenstein, Dracula, Freaks, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Island of Lost Souls, just to name a few. In order to get the most out of the text, it would be helpful if you are already familiar with the majority of these titles, as Smith goes into some depth with her analyses, which also assume a certain level of understanding and familiarity with the genre and its literary conventions.
As mentioned, the book is concerned with the collision between eugenics science, disability, and classic horror cinema in the United States. Smith takes her argument in a few different directions, but essentially, she posits that classic horror cinema emerged as a paradox of sorts. On the one hand, the films were an outgrowth of the period which championed eugenics, scientific racism, and forced sterilization for those deemed mentally, physically, or morally undesirable. In this sense, they often legitimized eugenic assumptions, which further reinforced demonizing and harmful stereotypes around disability. Yet, on the other hand, the monstrous characters and fantastical plots within the films were also a direct challenge to the biological determinism underpinning eugenic ideologies. As Smith notes, “[…] the conventions and strategies attached to classic horror narratives and images […] repeatedly frustrate eugenic desires and thus constantly draw attention to spectators’ active solicitation and consumption of dysgenic monstrosity.” Thus, classic horror cinema gave the public an avenue to explore what it meant to be human, what it meant to be non-human, and to continue engaging with the eugenics movement in a thrilling and entertaining forum.
However, there’s another layer to the cinematic experience that Smith peels away. According to her interpretation, discourses around eugenics and disability had become increasingly medicalized by the 1930s. Although circus freak-shows and other sensational and voyeuristic portrayals of deformity continued to exist, Smith argues that the general sentiment was changing in the United States, and that many individuals felt that ‘disability’ and ‘the disabled’ should be the object of scientific control rather than a feast for the public eye. A new discursive pattern was emerging, one in which disabilities were beginning to move out of the public discourse and into something more private, tucked away inside the institutions and under the gaze of white-clad professionals.
Gradually, as social norms and common decency advised the public to avert their eyes, a space opened up for the frustrated desire to look at, to engage with, and to judge disabilities. Freud hypothesized that the act of looking away increases the desire to stare. Smith extends this logic to eugenics science, arguing that the process of relegating disability almost exclusively to the domain of medical science took something away from the public that it clearly needed – that is, the need to reckon with human difference. People wanted to reckon with these differences not just scientifically, but on their own terms, as an exercise of their own civil agency. Smith unpacks this idea and takes it a step further: “[c]lassic horror films, then, stand as products of a eugenic era that work against the avowed desire to ‘look away’ from the distasteful image of eugenics. In foregrounding the too-real and evidently impaired body, classic horrors remind us of that the production of disability – on impaired as well as other marginalized bodies – lies at the heart of eugenics.” Therefore, horror cinema offered the public a new space in which they could confront human differences through a shared cultural experience that was both exciting and provocative. In doing so, however, the public once again became incorporated in the discursive production of disability.
Smith draws inspiration from a vast collection of thinkers and texts within the Continental tradition, including Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Butler, Benjamin, and the like. At times, I think that her far-reaching use of theory compromised the focus of her investigation. Smith references so many players that her writing can feel a bit like a fishing trawler, dragging its net across the ocean floor to grasp at whatever it can. Thankfully, most of her references pay off and illuminate – rather than obscure – the films in question. I found her application of psychoanalytic theory especially useful in this respect. However, what impressed me most about Hideous Progeny was the amount of historical legwork Smith performed. Her book is multi-layered and interdisciplinary, and a fine example of the complimentary relationships between literary criticism, media studies, and cultural history.
The book explores a selection of horror films produced in the 1930s, a decade considered by many to be the heyday of classic horror cinema. Smith situates these films historically and culturally against the backdrop of the eugenics and Social Darwinist movements of the 19th and 20th-centuries. Some of the films discussed in Hideous Progeny include Frankenstein, Dracula, Freaks, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Island of Lost Souls, just to name a few. In order to get the most out of the text, it would be helpful if you are already familiar with the majority of these titles, as Smith goes into some depth with her analyses, which also assume a certain level of understanding and familiarity with the genre and its literary conventions.
As mentioned, the book is concerned with the collision between eugenics science, disability, and classic horror cinema in the United States. Smith takes her argument in a few different directions, but essentially, she posits that classic horror cinema emerged as a paradox of sorts. On the one hand, the films were an outgrowth of the period which championed eugenics, scientific racism, and forced sterilization for those deemed mentally, physically, or morally undesirable. In this sense, they often legitimized eugenic assumptions, which further reinforced demonizing and harmful stereotypes around disability. Yet, on the other hand, the monstrous characters and fantastical plots within the films were also a direct challenge to the biological determinism underpinning eugenic ideologies. As Smith notes, “[…] the conventions and strategies attached to classic horror narratives and images […] repeatedly frustrate eugenic desires and thus constantly draw attention to spectators’ active solicitation and consumption of dysgenic monstrosity.” Thus, classic horror cinema gave the public an avenue to explore what it meant to be human, what it meant to be non-human, and to continue engaging with the eugenics movement in a thrilling and entertaining forum.
However, there’s another layer to the cinematic experience that Smith peels away. According to her interpretation, discourses around eugenics and disability had become increasingly medicalized by the 1930s. Although circus freak-shows and other sensational and voyeuristic portrayals of deformity continued to exist, Smith argues that the general sentiment was changing in the United States, and that many individuals felt that ‘disability’ and ‘the disabled’ should be the object of scientific control rather than a feast for the public eye. A new discursive pattern was emerging, one in which disabilities were beginning to move out of the public discourse and into something more private, tucked away inside the institutions and under the gaze of white-clad professionals.
Gradually, as social norms and common decency advised the public to avert their eyes, a space opened up for the frustrated desire to look at, to engage with, and to judge disabilities. Freud hypothesized that the act of looking away increases the desire to stare. Smith extends this logic to eugenics science, arguing that the process of relegating disability almost exclusively to the domain of medical science took something away from the public that it clearly needed – that is, the need to reckon with human difference. People wanted to reckon with these differences not just scientifically, but on their own terms, as an exercise of their own civil agency. Smith unpacks this idea and takes it a step further: “[c]lassic horror films, then, stand as products of a eugenic era that work against the avowed desire to ‘look away’ from the distasteful image of eugenics. In foregrounding the too-real and evidently impaired body, classic horrors remind us of that the production of disability – on impaired as well as other marginalized bodies – lies at the heart of eugenics.” Therefore, horror cinema offered the public a new space in which they could confront human differences through a shared cultural experience that was both exciting and provocative. In doing so, however, the public once again became incorporated in the discursive production of disability.
Smith draws inspiration from a vast collection of thinkers and texts within the Continental tradition, including Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Butler, Benjamin, and the like. At times, I think that her far-reaching use of theory compromised the focus of her investigation. Smith references so many players that her writing can feel a bit like a fishing trawler, dragging its net across the ocean floor to grasp at whatever it can. Thankfully, most of her references pay off and illuminate – rather than obscure – the films in question. I found her application of psychoanalytic theory especially useful in this respect. However, what impressed me most about Hideous Progeny was the amount of historical legwork Smith performed. Her book is multi-layered and interdisciplinary, and a fine example of the complimentary relationships between literary criticism, media studies, and cultural history.
October 31, 2012
I had the opportunity to study under Dr. Smith when finishing my undergrad degree. At that time I had been exposed to many of the concepts discussed in this book. Despite the fact that very little was new to me, I was fascinated by the subject matter. The subject of eugenics in American history are just more disturbing than any horror film. Yet, through a deeper review of classic horror film it is easy to see how the ideas of eugenics are reflected in the cannon of classic American horror films. The idea of the Other, the one to be feared and rejected is something that no one wants to admit to. But reflection is a major part of the issue: the audience is indicted for their participation in the gaze on the monster, the Other. This is a must read for everyone.
January 3, 2015
Although written in an academic style (which can be tiresome), it certainly was not tedious as I learned quite a bit more from it than I thought I would. I am culturally Deaf and very involved with all aspects of the politics involving Deaf Culture so I was very pleased Smith discussed a bit about Alexander Graham Bell and the association he had with the Eugenic movements. Overall, pretty good although I will admit I did a side-eye on some parts as it was certainly a bit of an overreach but not by much.
April 22, 2015
An incredibly interesting look at how classic horror films of the early twentieth century could both support and, in a way, subvert "eugenic (il)logic" - and although I have little experience in disability studies or film analysis, that was no barrier to enjoying Smith's examination of both. I particularly enjoyed the chapters on "Eugenic Reproduction: Chimeras in Dracula and Frankenstein", "Enfreaking the Classic Horror Genre: Freaks", and "Mad Medicine: Disability in the Mad-Doctor Films".
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews