Embodying Fear: Disability, Abnormality, and
the representation of Horror in Odiyan (2018) and Kumari (2022) Vellinakshatram
(2004)
Surasree
Deb Barman,
State Aided College Teacher,
Birsa Munda College,
Darjeeling, West Bengal, India,
&
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
Department Of English,
Raiganj University,
U/D, West Bengal, India.
Abstract: The horror genre has persistently drawn upon the
non-normative body as a visual and symbolic site through which cultural
anxieties are articulated. Across cinematic traditions, bodily
difference—whether marked by disability, deformity, or hybridity — has often
been positioned within regimes of fear, where deviation from the perceived norm
becomes synonymous with danger, excess, and disruption. In the Indian context,
such associations acquire further complexity through their entanglement with
folklore, ritual practices, and deeply embedded notions of purity, hierarchy,
and social belonging. Malayalam horror cinema, in particular, offers a
compelling terrain where these anxieties are mediated through localized mythic
structures and embodied narratives. Within this cultural and aesthetic
landscape, Odiyan (2018) and Kumari (2022) Vellinakshatram (2004), foreground
figures whose bodies resist stability—through shape-shifting, hybridity, and
mythic excess—thereby unsettling the boundaries between the human and the
non-human. These films reveal how the abnormal body is not merely represented
but actively produced as a site of tension where fear, power, and marginality
intersect. With a focus on these three films, the paper highlights how
contemporary Malayalam horror cinema continues to negotiate the limits of the
“normal” body, revealing both the persistence of ableist imaginaries and the
possibility of their disruption within regional cinematic practices.
Keywords: Disability, Abnormality, Horror, Malayalam cinema,
Otherness.
The cinematic language of
horror has long relied on the evocation of fear through the unfamiliar, the
unsettling, and the disruptive. As a genre, horror thrives on destabilising the
boundaries between the known and the unknown, the normal and the abnormal, the
self and the other. From its earliest manifestations in silent cinema to its
contemporary global forms, horror has persistently drawn upon cultural
anxieties, social taboos, and deeply embedded fears. Central to this aesthetic
is the construction of the “monstrous,” a category that is not fixed but fluid,
shaped by historical and ideological contexts. Within this framework, the human
body—especially when marked as different—becomes a potent site for the
projection of fear. Physical, cognitive, and psychological differences are
often exaggerated or distorted to signify danger, deviance, or moral
corruption. Thus, the genre has frequently turned to bodies that deviate from
normative standards as visual and narrative shorthand for horror.
The association between
disability and horror is neither incidental nor superficial; rather, it is
rooted in a long cultural history that equates bodily difference with moral or
existential threat. Disability, in many horror narratives, is framed not as a
lived experience but as a spectacle—something to be feared, pitied, or
eradicated. Characters with disabilities are often positioned as either victims
of horrific circumstances or as embodiments of horror themselves. This dual
positioning reinforces a problematic binary: the disabled body as either
tragically vulnerable or inherently monstrous. Here, deviation from the norm
becomes a visual cue for unease. The reliance of horror on visual impact and
symbolic excess, amplifies these cues, transforming disability into a narrative
device that heightens tension and fear.
Horror as a genre is deeply
invested in the body—both as a site of representation and as a medium of
affect. It seeks to provoke visceral responses, operating through body-genre
that stimulates physiological reactions in its audience (Williams). At the same time, horror engages not merely
with the physical body but with the psychological interior, functioning
simultaneously in mind and body (Cheyne 29). Within this framework,
disability—particularly when marked as deviation from normative bodily or
mental states—emerges as a powerful narrative device. Non-normative body-minds
are frequently constructed as disruptions to social order, generating unease
and anxiety. This cultural discomfort is then amplified within horror
narratives, where disability becomes a means of producing fear, revulsion, and suspense (Cheyne 32–33).
Horror cinema frequently
constructs its antagonists through processes of othering, marking them as
fundamentally different from the audience. Disability, in this context, becomes
a marker of alterity. The disabled character is not simply different but is
rendered as unknowable, unpredictable, and often dangerous. According to Miller, “The representation of disability in
horror film has been overwhelmingly negative. It is common for directors
throughout history to portray people with disabilities in a light that is
negative, dangerous and extremely detrimental to the inclusion of people with
disabilities into society.” (Miller 20). This construction is further reinforced
through cinematic techniques such as lighting, sound design, and camera angles,
which work together to produce an atmosphere of dread around such characters.
Consequently, the audience is conditioned to associate disability with fear,
reinforcing existing social stigmas and anxieties.
When we turn to Indian
cinema, the representation of horror takes on additional layers of cultural
specificity. Indian horror films, while influenced by global cinematic
traditions, are deeply rooted in local mythologies, religious beliefs, and
folkloric traditions. The genre often draws upon supernatural elements such as
ghosts, spirits, and reincarnation, embedding horror within a moral and
cosmological framework. Early Indian horror films frequently relied on gothic
settings, haunted mansions, and vengeful spirits, reflecting both indigenous
storytelling traditions and colonial influences. Over time, the genre has
evolved, incorporating psychological horror, social commentary, and
experimental narrative forms. Despite these changes, the core reliance on
visual and symbolic markers of fear remains consistent.
The representation of
disability in South Indian society and culture is shaped by a dense interplay
of religious belief systems, social practices, and inherited cultural
narratives. Disability is rarely understood purely in medical terms; instead,
it is often interpreted through moral and spiritual frameworks that assign
meaning to bodily and cognitive differences. Central to this understanding is
the persistent influence of karmic philosophy, which links present conditions
to past actions. In many social contexts, disability is
implicitly or explicitly associated with the consequences of wrongdoing—either
in one’s current life, in the womb, or across previous incarnations (Pal 113).
This belief, deeply embedded in cultural consciousness, constructs disability
not merely as misfortune but as a form of “deserved” outcome (Pal 113), reinforcing stigma and
moral judgment. Such interpretations, while offering explanatory frameworks,
ultimately contribute to the marginalization of disabled individuals by
attaching notions of guilt, fate, and divine retribution to their lived
realities.
These layered cultural
perceptions are vividly reflected and reproduced in South Indian cinema. Film
industries across Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Kannada contexts frequently
draw upon familiar cultural codes, embedding disability within melodrama,
morality, and spectacle. One of the most enduring influences on
cinematic representation is the myth of karma (E 36), which continues to shape
how disability is narrated. In many films—especially within horror and
supernatural genres—disability is framed as the visible manifestation of past
sins or cosmic imbalance. This narrative logic encourages audiences to
internalise the idea that bodily difference is tied to moral failure, echoing a
long-standing theme in Indian literature and mythology where disability
functions as punishment for transgression.
In Malayalam horror cinema,
the association between disability and fear has been both persistent and
multifaceted. Characters with mental or physical differences are often
positioned at the intersection of vulnerability and danger. On one hand, they
are depicted as susceptible to harm, possession, or external manipulation; on
the other, they are framed as potential threats to the social and moral order. This dual construction aligns with Cheyne’s observation
that disability in horror frequently oscillates between monstrosity and
victimhood (28). Such
portrayals reinforce the idea that bodily or mental “imperfection” destabilises
the normative rhythms of life, thereby making it a fertile ground for horror
narratives.
The early phase of Malayalam
horror cinema illustrates how these dynamics are embedded within broader
socio-cultural structures. Films such as Lisa (1978) and Kalliyangattu
Neeli (1979) foreground female ghost figures whose narratives of revenge
are deeply intertwined with issues of gender and caste
(E 43). These
films position the supernatural as a medium through which suppressed grievances
are articulated. Later works continue this trajectory by linking horror to
unfulfilled desires and social hierarchies, where caste and religion emerge as
underlying antagonistic forces. In such narratives, the “monstrous feminine” (E 43) becomes a recurring trope, embodying both
victimisation and vengeance within a culturally specific framework.
However, in the early
2000s, film makers increasingly adopted more nuanced approaches. This
transformation is particularly evident in Malayalam cinema after 2010, a period
marked by experimentation with narrative forms and thematic concerns. Horror,
in this context, gradually moved away from external supernatural threats toward
more introspective and psychological dimensions. This shift is visible in
horror narratives that internalise fear, locating it within the psyche rather
than in external entities. Emotional states such as trauma, grief, and depression
are reimagined as sources of horror, resulting in an allegorical mode of
storytelling. Films like Nine (2019) and Bhoothakaalam (2022)
exemplify this transition, where psychological distress becomes central to the
narrative. Similarly, Chathur Mukham (2021) presents technological
addiction as a form of possession, thereby adapting traditional horror motifs
to contemporary realities.
Malayalam horror cinema
reveals a persistent reliance on disability as a narrative and symbolic
resource. Whether through the spectacle of possession, the exploration of
psychological trauma, or the construction of vulnerable subjects, disability
remains central to the genre’s affective economy. Physical disability often
evokes visual discomfort and aversion, while mental disability is frequently
associated with susceptibility to possession, manipulation, or victimisation.
This dual positioning underscores the enduring link between disability and
horror, where the non-normative body-mind becomes a site through which cultural
anxieties are both expressed and managed.
The evolution of horror in
Malayalam cinema cannot be understood without acknowledging its strong roots in
regional literature and folklore traditions. Films like Bhargavi Nilayam
(1964) and Yakshi (1968) illustrate how horror in Malayalam cinema
emerged through the adaptation of culturally familiar narratives involving
spirits, black magic, and otherworldly entities. These figures are not merely
fantastical inventions but are embedded in collective cultural consciousness.
They function as expressions of deeper psychological fears, rooted in both
folklore and lived cultural experience (Raj
and Suresh 135–136).
Malayalam cinema, like many
other film traditions, has repeatedly drawn upon this association between
physical difference and moral deviance. Villains are frequently depicted with
visible impairments—scarred faces, missing limbs or asymmetrical
features—thereby visually coding them as dangerous. In some cases, punishment
itself is inscribed onto the body, where instead of death, the antagonist is
physically disabled as a form of retribution
(Pal 110). Such
narrative choices reinforce the idea that disability signifies both suffering
and moral failure. Even peripheral characters such as beggars or criminals are
often portrayed with physical disabilities, further entrenching the link
between abnormality and deviance.
Horror intensifies this
representational pattern by transforming bodily incompleteness into a central
aesthetic principle. As Carroll suggests, monsters are often defined by their
lack of wholeness—the absence of limbs, distorted features, or fragmented
bodies—which generates unease and fear
(Carroll 56).
The Film, Odiyan (2018), directed by V. A. Shrikumar Menon, is set in
the rural landscape of Kerala, where folklore, fear, and belief systems shape
everyday life. The film revolves around the legend of the Odiyan — a
shape-shifter believed to possess supernatural abilities to transform into
animals or other human forms, often used to instill fear or carry out acts of
revenge. The film situates this myth within a narrative of memory, revenge, and
social marginalisation, centering on Manikyan (Mohanlal), whose return to his
village reactivates both personal and collective anxieties. The story unfolds
through a series of flashbacks that reveal Manikyan’s evolution into an Odiyan,
driven by social humiliation, emotional trauma, and marginalisation. His love
for Prabha (ManjuWarrier) and his conflict with the feudal power structures of
the village form the emotional core of the film. The narrative situates
Manikyan as both feared and misunderstood, blurring the line between victim and
perpetrator.
What becomes particularly
significant for a disability-oriented reading is the way bodily transformation
is visualised. The Odiyan’s power to shape shift is not represented as seamless
or perfect; rather, it is marked by distortion and incompleteness. When the
Odiyan assumes animal forms, these bodies are often rendered with visible
irregularities—an extra limb, a missing feature, or an exaggerated physical
trait. These deviations from bodily norms are narratively functional: they
attract attention and curiosity, drawing victims closer before the act of
violence unfolds (K. S. 331). In this sense, bodily difference is not merely
aesthetic but instrumentalised to present horror.
Such a portrayal aligns
with broader theoretical understandings of horror aesthetics. Noel Carroll
argues that horror is generated through entities that disrupt established
categories—beings that are incomplete, impure, or structurally ambiguous (Carroll 56). The Odiyan’s body exemplifies this
condition, existing in a state of flux between human and animal, while also
marked by visible irregularities. However, these markers closely parallel
cultural perceptions of physical disability, where deviation from the normative
body is often coded as unsettling or dangerous. The film, therefore,
inadvertently reinforces a troubling association between disability and
monstrosity.
At the same time, the
socio-historical context embedded within Odiyan folklore complicates this
reading. The emergence of Odiyan is linked to caste-based exploitation, where
individuals from marginalised communities were historically associated with
such practices and feared for their supposed powers (K. S. 330). This suggests that the “monstrous” body is
not an inherent condition but a socially constructed identity, shaped by
systems of oppression and exclusion. In this framework, bodily abnormality
becomes a metaphor for the violence inflicted upon marginalised groups, rather
than a naturalised marker of difference.
Thus, Odiyan operates
within a dual representational framework. On one level, it reproduces a
conventional horror trope that equates bodily difference with fear and danger,
drawing on the visual language of deformity and incompleteness (Bogdan 116).On another, it gestures toward a deeper
critique of the socio-cultural processes that produce such figures of
otherness. By situating the Odiyan within histories of caste and marginalisation,
the film opens up a space to interpret “disability” not as an inherent bodily
flaw but as a category shaped by cultural anxieties, myth, and power relations.
Directed by Nirmal Sahadev,
Kumari (2022), draws upon mythic storytelling to construct a narrative
where divinity, transgression, and bodily difference intersect. The film
recounts, through a grandmother’s tale, the story of a goddess who descends to
Earth, captivated by its beauty, and chooses to remain. Her union with a mortal
man disrupts the natural order, producing offspring—Chathan and Gari Devan—who
exist outside the categories of both god and human. This deviation from
normative lineage becomes central to how their bodies and identities are framed
within the narrative. The birth of Chathan and Gari is marked as “cursed,” and
this sense of inherited transgression is directly mapped onto their physical
and mental conditions. Their bodies are portrayed as irregular and unsettling,
neither divine nor human, reinforcing the idea that deviation from established
norms results in aberration. In this context, disability is not represented as
a neutral or lived condition but as a consequence of moral and cosmic disorder.
The children are symbolically constructed as bearing the “sins” of their parents,
thereby aligning disability with punishment and deviance.
Chathan and Gari embody
this anxiety: their exaggerated physical features and unstable identities
position them as spectacles of otherness. Gari’s three-fingered hand, in
particular, becomes a recurring visual marker of difference. This bodily
feature is not incidental; it is narratively amplified when Kumari (Aishwarya
Lekshmi) encounters Dhruvan (Shine Tom Chacko), who mutilates his own hand to
resemble Gari. This act of self-inflicted bodily alteration intensifies the
horror, transforming disability into a site of fear, revulsion, and ritualistic
imitation. Moreover, the film extends this association into the realm of mental
disability. Chathan and Gari are depicted as lacking control over their immense
powers, using them primarily for destruction. Their cognitive difference is
thus aligned with chaos and violence, reinforcing a long-standing cinematic
trope in which mental disability is equated with danger and unpredictability.
As R. Cheyne observes, such portrayals contribute to entrenched stereotypes by
repeatedly casting disabled figures as antagonists or instruments of malevolent
forces (Cheyne 31).
However, these
representations also reveal an underlying cultural logic. The framing of Chathan
and Gari as both powerful and “disabled” reflects a paradox: their difference
is simultaneously feared and mythologised. While their bodies signify deviation
and threat, they also embody a form of excess power that cannot be contained
within normative structures. This duality suggests that the film is not merely
depicting disability but using disability-coded imagery to negotiate broader
anxieties about transgression, hybridity, and the limits of the human.
Thus, Kumari participates
in a representational pattern similar to that found in horror and myth-based
narratives more broadly, where disability becomes a visual and symbolic
shorthand for otherness. At the same time, by embedding these figures within a
story of forbidden union and inherited transgression, the film reveals how such
notions of “abnormality” are culturally constructed, shaped by moral
frameworks, mythic imagination, and deep-rooted fears of the unfamiliar body.
Vellinakshatram (2004) situates horror
within a framework of reincarnation, prophecy, and revenge, where the
supernatural gradually reveals buried familial crimes. The narrative centers on
Vinod (Prithviraj Sukumaran) and his daughter Ammu (Taruni Sachdev), whose
behavior becomes the focal point of a series of unexplained paranormal events.
Initially believed to be possessed, Ammu is later revealed to be the
reincarnation of a wronged child, returning as an agent of retribution. This
revelation connects the present to a violent past, culminating in the downfall
of Mahendra Verma (Siddique).Within this narrative, disability is not
incidental but strategically deployed as a marker of moral and narrative
consequence. A prophecy foretells that a child born under a specific
astrological condition would bring about Mahendra Verma’s death. As this
prophecy begins to unfold with Ammu’s birth, physical impairments emerge:
Mahendra Verma loses his hearing, and Ammu’s grandmother becomes paralysed.
These bodily conditions are framed not as neutral experiences but as signs of
impending doom and retribution. Disability here functions as a narrative device
that signals the unfolding of justice and the inevitability of punishment.
More significantly, the
film aligns physical disability with villainy. Mahendra Verma’s impairment is
intertwined with his characterisation as morally corrupt, particularly in
relation to his past actions. As noted by Miller, cinematic villains often
embody danger not only through their actions—such as violence or
exploitation—but also through visible bodily markers that signify their
deviance (Miller 21). In Vellinakshatram (2004), disability becomes one such
marker, externalising internal corruption and making it legible to the viewer.
The impaired body thus operates as a visual representation of moral decay and
impending horror. This representational strategy contributes to a broader
cultural pattern in which disability is associated with diminished humanity. As
Paul K. Longmore argues, the repeated depiction of disabled individuals as
criminal or morally deficient reinforces the idea that disability entails a
loss of essential human qualities (Longmore
135). In
this film, such associations are further intensified by linking disability with
supernatural retribution, suggesting that bodily impairment is both a
punishment and a manifestation of past wrongdoing.
Additionally, the film
gestures toward the intersection of physical and mental difference in
generating horror. The villains’ psychological states are inseparable from
their violent acts, and this convergence produces a sustained sense of unease.
As R. Cheyne observes, such portrayals create a lingering disease, where mental
instability and violence work together to evoke fear and anticipation (Cheyne 27). In Vellinakshatram (2004), this dynamic reinforces
the idea that both physical and mental disabilities are integral to the
construction of horror, rather than incidental to it.
Thus, unlike narratives
where disability is attached to supernatural beings, Vellinakshatram (2004)locates disability within human
characters, particularly those marked as morally corrupt. This shift does not
necessarily challenge stereotypes; instead, it reconfigures them by embedding
disability within a moral economy of crime and punishment. The film ultimately
reveals how disability is mobilised within horror cinema not merely as a
condition but as a symbolic language—one that encodes fear, guilt, and
retribution within the human body itself.
These three films Odiyan (2018) and Kumari (2022) Vellinakshatram
(2004), demonstrate that the representation of disability in
Malayalam horror cinema is neither accidental nor isolated; rather, it forms
part of a larger aesthetic and cultural pattern through which fear is produced
and sustained. Across different phases of the genre—from folklore-based narratives
to more psychological explorations—disability has remained a recurring visual
and symbolic marker, often used to signal danger, abnormality, or moral
disturbance.
One of the most persistent
tendencies is the reliance on bodily differences to generate horror. Physical
irregularities—whether in the distorted shapeshifting bodies of Odiyan (2018), the hybrid and “cursed”
forms in Kumari (2022), or the
inflicted impairments in Vellinakshatram (2004)—are framed in ways that evoke unease and repulsion. These
representations align with broader horror conventions where the unfamiliar or
non-normative body becomes a site of anxiety. At the same time, mental
difference is frequently tied to instability and violence, reinforcing the idea
that cognitive divergence is inherently threatening. Such patterns reveal how
deeply entrenched negative stereotypes of disability continue to inform the
visual language of horror.
However, these portrayals
are not static; they evolve alongside shifts in the genre itself. Over time,
there has been a gradual movement toward more complex narratives rooted in
folklore, occult practices, and psychological conflict. Yet, even within these
evolving frameworks, disability remains a crucial signifier. Importantly, these
cinematic patterns reflect broader cultural beliefs. Ideas of karma,
transgression, and cosmic imbalance frequently underpin the depiction of
disability. In this sense, Malayalam horror cinema does more than merely
entertain; it reproduces and circulates cultural anxieties about the “abnormal”
body, embedding them within familiar narrative structures. At the same time,
the diversity of these representations—ranging from monstrous figures to
victims and psychologically complex individuals—indicates that the discourse
around disability in horror is not entirely uniform. While many portrayals
reinforce stigma, others open up possibilities for more layered
interpretations, particularly when disability is linked to social
marginalization, trauma, or systemic violence rather than inherent evil.
In conclusion, Malayalam
horror films offer a significant site for examining how disability is imagined,
constructed, and circulated within popular culture. The continued association
of disability with fear and negativity calls for critical attention, especially
from the perspectives of disability studies and cultural analysis. At the same
time, the gradual shifts in narrative focus suggest the potential for more
nuanced and responsible representations in the future—ones that move beyond
reductive stereotypes and engage more thoughtfully with the complexities of
embodied difference.
Work Cited
Bogdan,
Robert. Picturing Disability: Beggar,
Freak, Citizen, and Other Photographic Rhetoric. Syracuse UP, 2012.
Carroll,
Noel. “The Nature of Horror.” The Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 46, no. 1, 1987, pp. 51–59.
Cheyne,
Ria. Disability, Literature, Genre
Representation and Affect in Contemporary Fiction. Liverpool UP, 2019.
E,
Liyana and Aju Aravind. "Disability as Fear Factor: Stereotyping of
Disability in Malayalam Horror Cinema." Journal of Film and Video, vol. 77 no. 2, 2025, p. 36-48. Project
MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/953581.
K.
S., Dhema, et al. “A Study of Magical Realism in Odiyan through the Collective
Conscious of PaRuthipulli.” International
Journal of English, Literature and Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, 2020,
pp. 330–31, https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.51.54.
Longmore,
P. K. Why I Burned My Book and Other
Essays on Disability. Temple UP, 1985.
Miller,
Jacob. A Critical Film Analysis of
Representation of People with Disabilities in M. Night Shyamalan Films.
2019. Fresno State, master’s thesis.
Pal,
Joyojeet. “Physical Disability and Indian Cinema.” Different Bodies: Essays on
Disability in Film and Television, edited by Marja Evelyn Mogk, McFarland,
2013, pp. 109–30.
Raj,
Sony Jalarajan, and Adith K. Suresh. “Cultural Monsters in Indian Cinema: The
Politics of Adaptation, Transformation and Disfigurement.” Cultural Intertexts, vol. 12, no. 9, 2023, pp. 134–44.
Williams,
Linda. “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess.” Film Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, 1991, pp. 2–13.