American Mary

On Thursday November 15, 2012 I was lucky enough to be asked to host a screening of the new horror film American Mary at Luna Cinema. It was a special evening as the directors, Jen and Sylvia Soska, were in attendance and I conducted a Q&A with them after the film. Although I wish that more people had shown up (audience apathy is a chronic problem in Perth, I am afraid), everyone that did show up was amazing and open and involved. 

The film itself is a great piece of genre filmmaking, with a striking visual style and a powerful lead performance. I have been thinking about the film ever since I saw it, so here are a couple of thoughts.

But first, for those of you in the cheap seats, American Mary follows Mary Mason (Katharine Isabelle), a medical student who is struggling to pay off her student loans. In financial dire straits, Mary ends up accepting money to perform a surgical procedure on a woman who wishes to become a human Barbie doll. This serves as Mary’s introduction into the underground body modification scene. After Mary is assaulted by one of her professors she decides to quit medical school and go into business for herself, servicing other members of the body-mod community. However, this doesn’t mean that she has forgotten the harm that was done to her, and she uses her surgical skills to enact her revenge.

THE RAPE-REVENGE NARRATIVE

American Mary certainly fits in with the sub-genre of rape-revenge. What is interesting about the film, though, is how the rape is presented, and who the rapist is. Many rape-revenge films (such as Ms 45, Death Wish, Irreversible) feature rape that is perpetrated by a stranger. In reality, rape is more often perpetrated by someone who the victim knows, with the perpetrator building up and then abusing the victim’s trust. In American Mary the rapist is Mary’s professor, a person in authority who uses Mary’s desire to be accepted and valued by her teachers to his own advantage. 

The rape scene itself is sensitively handled. Unlike the more graphic approach used in films such as I Spit on Your Grave and Irreversible, where wide shots are favoured in order to show the whole physical act, here the focus is kept on Mary’s face, particularly her eyes, keeping the scene concentrated on the emotional impact of the assault, rather than the physical. In the Q&A that followed the screening an audience member (who, I’m quite proud to admit, was one of my students!) actually asked the Soskas about this scene, and their choice to remain in close-up. Jen Soska mentioned screening the film at London’s FrightFest, where a large amount of films at the festival featured scenes of rape, many of which were gratuitous and simply inserted for shock value (I also recall renowned horror film critic Kim Newman bemoaning the festival’s prevalence of ‘rapey pieces of shit’). Although Gaspar Noe was an influence (seen in the green dress that Mary is wearing, which is in a similar satin material to the dress worn by Monica Belluci in Irreversible), the choices made in this scene are radically different, and all the better for it. Why try and beat Noe at his own game? One wonders if perhaps Irreversible is somewhat responsible in the rise of rape scenes used for impact and shock by films also seeking Irreversible’s level of controversy and outrage - but what is ironic is that Irreversible is also probably responsible for other rape scenes paling in comparison. What we end up with is a bunch of films trying to outdo each other with atrocity, with no real ideas or points of view behind them (i.e. the elements that really make such scenes disturbing and shocking without sliding into dubious titillation).

But I don’t want to give this scene too much significance, as there are other aspects about the film to discuss. The idea of revenge in film is a very interesting one for me (I have aspirations to do a book on revenge cinema if I ever get the time), given that revenge as an action goes against everything that a civilised society is built on, yet as a concept and a plot point it is one that offers such delicious vicarious thrills. I for one actually let out a gasp of disbelief (as well as, admittedly, a gleeful giggle) when the full extent of Mary’s revenge was revealed (confession: I probably enjoy violence in films too much, for example, whenever a Nazi got scalped in Inglourious Basterds I couldn't help but let out a chuckle, ditto when Liam Neeson shot that guy’s wife in the shoulder in Taken). I don’t want to reveal anymore since the film is still out in cinemas, so possibly this is an aspect of the film I can explore in more depth whenever that book idea eventuates into something more.

MAD SCIENCE AND BODY HORROR

The subplot of Mary’s adventures within the body modification community provides some relief from the darker aspects of the revenge storyline. Here the people that Mary encounters are outwardly different and ‘freakish’, but also friendly and open – in definite contrast to the ‘pillars of society’ that Mary encounters within the medical establishment. These two groups are set up in opposition to each other, with the marginalised group of the body-mod community providing a sanctuary from the insidious exploitation that Mary encounters at med school, a place where Mary is assaulted and driven into debt (and, although it is not mentioned in the film at all, it is also well-documented that medical students are often made to work ridiculously long hours). At the Q&A Sylvia Soska mentioned that the film contains some of her and her sister’s own personal experiences within the film industry – the medical establishment represents the larger film industry, while the body-mod community stands in for the horror community. In both cases, those that are considered the ‘freaks’ are actually the ones who are caring and welcoming (Tristan Risk’s performance as Betty Boop wannabe Beatress is a standout here), while those in authority abuse their power. 

In one scene we see a succession of Mary’s patients, as they parade their modifications with pride. Bodily alterations and transgressions are presented as positive expressions of individuality, with Mary represented as an artist as much as a surgeon (as evidenced by the portfolio that Mary keeps of her work). Yet, there is also a shade of the mad scientist about Mary, in her experiments with possibilities and limitations of the body. This is illustrated most explicitly in the scene involving a set of twins (played by the Soskas themselves) who come to Mary with a special request. The twins speak with German(?) accents, and when Mary performs surgery on them with another doctor, he mentions Dr Mengele, the Nazi doctor who performed experiments on twins during World War II. This places American Mary within the tradition of mad science films, which often allude to Mengele and the Nazi experiments (for example, the scientist Dr Josef Heiter in Human Centipede (First Sequence) shares the same first name as Mengele).

Also in this scene is a clear visual reference to David Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers, another film involving twins and diabolical surgery. Both Mary and the other surgeon wear red scrubs, like those sported by Jeremy Irons in Cronenberg’s film. Cronenberg (a fellow Canadian) must be a key influence here, given that his films also explore the body, and the evolutionary possibilities and alterations (the “new flesh”) provided by advances in science and technology. But whereas Cronenberg has been criticised by theorists, such as Robin Wood, as presenting a conservative view of bodily difference as disgusting and repulsive (a criticism I somewhat disagree with), in American Mary body modification is, if anything, celebrated as a form of freedom of expression. There is real beauty amongst the grotesquerie.    

    

This scene also highlights the importance of costume in the film. At different points Mary’s clothing alludes to other horror films: the Dead Ringers red scrubs and the green Irreversible style dress as mentioned above, and a white shirt and black apron similar to the costume worn by the character of Asami in Takashi Miike’s Audition (another film in which a female takes revenge on male exploitation). As well as providing a small thrill for those of us who can spot these references, it also helps express Mary herself, as victim, surgeon and avenger. Katharine Isabelle’s performance should also be noted here, as she imbues Mary with an implacable strength and determination that allows us as audience members to stick with Mary, even as her actions become more extreme. Along with the use of costume, the film’s bypassing of CGI in favour of prosthetics and make-up effects also infuses the film with an intertextuality that horror fans can enjoy, plus it looks a hell of a lot better! I still contend that is difficult to be scared of a bunch of pixels, that the tangibility of practical effects creates a texture and reality onscreen that a computer cannot replicate.       

American Mary presents an advance in the Soska’s visual style, in comparison to their first film Dead Hooker in a Trunk (a film which, despite its technical and budgetary limitations, had real guts, humour and a shit-ton of moxie). The horror here is not grim and ugly, but sleek and beautiful. Possibly the movies of Italian horror directors such as Mario Bava and Dario Argento are influences, as they also constructed scenes of horror and murder in a way that was visually attractive. This is not so as to trivialise Mary’s experiences, though, but to engage us in an experience of horror that revels in the delights of the genre. 

 Me with Jen and Sylvia Soska, truly two of the nicest gals you could ever meet.