American Mary - A Cautionary Tale for Who?

After watching Rabid, I was dying to check out the Soska’s sisters other body horror: American Mary. (2012) It naturally falls into the horror category, but what is the real scare of this film?

So here’s the premise: Mary Mason (Katharine Isabelle) is a medical student who needs extra funds. Though she aims into sex work, she finds herself doing emergency surgery instead and suddenly the world of extreme body modification is opened up to her from the strippers of the club. When she’s taken advantage of by her teacher, she chooses to dive down the modification rabbit hole.

Here’s the first question – does extreme body modification fall under body horror? Especially when the client asks for it, such as Ruby Realgirl (Paula Lindburg), Mary’s first client. This side of the movie shows surgeries like this as something the client wants and needs to feel themselves, and speaks to Mary’s compassion. The heart of the movie is deciding who you are and it’s poetic that Mary finds that whilst changing people externally.

This film predates the corner of youtube dedicated to individuals with these kind of extreme modifications, so maybe the fear and taboo around this has changed in the last eight years. Or maybe the knowledge that these surgeries cost a lot of money and therefore seeing Mary grow into a successful businesswoman just makes you think ‘good for her.’

And this is a ‘good for her’ movie at its core. Because the catalyst for Mary’s change is her teacher. Maybe that is the real horror here – the party that she is invited to by her professors and what occurs there. This movie, directed by women, understands the terror of that and shows it accordingly. (Trigger warning.)

Because of this, you’re on Mary’s side when she takes revenge. That’s the showcase of the horror of body modification. So, here’s the second question – how far would you punish the man who did what Dr Grant (David Lovgren) did? Mary takes this to the absolute extreme but – good for her?

The warning here is partly from the Soska sister’s own experience with sleazy people who seem reputable, but the blame is never on Mary. She’s not punished for trusting a teacher. He is the one punished. This takes the finger pointing at women “asking for it,” and twists it back to the person really responsible.

It’s a shame, then, the movie ends the way it does. It fits smoothly into the narrative and is a twist whose seeds have been sown from the beginning. Cohesively, it’s a good ending. But it also feels like the ‘fallen woman,’ stereotype of Victorian fiction. I’ve written essays examining Tess of the D’Urbervilles that apply here. Should we fall back into this trope in 2012? Was this even the Soska sisters’ intention or just coincidence of mainstream narrative?

The vigilante justice and the underground crime boss storyline really make this movie sit the line between ‘thriller’ and ‘horror.’ It’s the story of a woman getting revenge and forming a successful business. The Soska sisters build Mary’s different life and world in a short space of time so expertly that I wished this was a novel. I wanted to know more of Mary’s life, more of her thoughts – more of her world.

This is a film that makes great use of lighting and the colour red. It’s pitch black humour makes it an entertaining movie. The character of Mary is complex and real, even if other characters aren’t fleshed out to the same degree.

Could the themes be developed further – or are they left as they are for the audience to ask questions? That’s one that’s left to the individual.

(This is telling you to go watch the film for yourself.)

(P.S, the final question: was I the only one getting chemistry from Mary and Beatress Johnson (Tristan Risk.))