It's simultaneously blessing and a curse to come to a horror movie with a thirst to unearth the filmmakers' artistry. Sometimes, it's a little like rooting through a box of Froot Loops to find the prize hidden inside, only to come up with multicolored dust caked under your fingernails and nothing but a two-stage lenticular card showing an image of a clown shifting from side to side. Just like the treat DOES exist in the cereal box, there IS a vision in a movie, but it's nothing to get terribly excited about."Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary" isn't a particularly interesting movie when viewed on its own merits. It's a straightforward, competent-enough tale of modern-day vampirism that, much like its spiritual cousin "Martin" (directed by George A. Romero and super-highly recommended), downplays supernatural themes in favor of the concepts of madness, family legacy, and tragedy. Cristina Ferrare's portrayal of Mary, a painter with a compulsion to drink human blood, is untouchably icy and the resulting effect is that the viewer never really empathizes with her struggle to hide her murderous activities from her loved ones.

What IS interesting about "Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary" is that it was directed by Mexican filmmaker Juan López Moctezuma, who created two of the greatest statements in surrealist horror filmmaking of all time: "Alucarda" and "The Mansion of Madness." More interesting still, "Mary, Mary" was made between "Mansion" and "Alucarda." "Mary, Mary's" similarities to "Alucarda" are particularly striking, but ultimately the different choices made in the latter film make up a large portion of its success.
Where "Mary, Mary" might be seen as that lenticular clown card, "Alucarda" is a movie of another sort altogether. It's like finding the Golden Ticket inside the Wonka Bar, to mix my metaphors entirely and inextricably. It tells the story of two adolescent girls (dark and dangerous Alucarda and naive Justine) who form a deep--almost obsessive--spiritual bond when they are brought to live at a convent orphanage. After their dabbling in occult rituals gets all-too-serious, the girls are possessed by demons, unleashing all manner of bad mojo on their keepers. Yes, friends--it's pretty much Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" car-crashed into Ken Russell's "The Devils." I geek about "Alucarda" with Classic-Horror.com's Nate Yapp in a podcast linked here. I'm going to assume a general familiarity with this movie, so in the interests of time, I'll link to more in-depth takes from my two of my fave blogs. For a wonderful and reverent review of "Alucarda," check out this write-up at Killer Kittens from Beyond the Grave. Junk is gonna get fairly reverent fairly quickly, so if you want a palate-cleansing and very-silly-but-delighted-nonetheless review, check out Mad Mad Mad Mad Movies' take on "Alucarda" here.
So who made these two seemingly disparate movies? Juan López Moctezuma is an interesting figure in Mexican cinema. His work exists in a sort of limbo between the mainstream seat-filling fare of monster mashes, vampire chillers, and masked wrestling films that characterized the country's genre offerings well into the 1970s and the dreamscapes of Alejandro Jodorowsky (whose western-film-themed masterpiece "El Topo" was co-produced by Moctezuma). While Jodorowsky dove head-first into deeply symbolic stories that have genre elements, Moctezuma's films are horror stories with symbolic elements.
All that brings us back to today's vampirrific topics of discussion. Defining what makes two kinda-similar movies made by definitely-the-same guy so very different in terms of their effectiveness breaks down a little like this:
1. The destructive power of compulsion is front and center in both stories. Mary murders and exsanguinates her victims while in a trance-like state, seemingly powerless against the overwhelming need to consume blood. Alucarda and Justine are taken over by powers outside of their bodies and made to commit animalistic, violent, and antisocial acts. All of these women are operating on a level that's unreasoning and primal, and this behavior causes chaos in their lives that spills into the lives of those around them.
2. A lesbian relationship is the turning point in both films. While the physicality of the relationship between Justine and Alucarda is largely implied, the moment when Mary allows Greta to take her home for a romantic interlude marks the point when Mary first preys on someone she knows. Her tearful admission of guilt before drugging, stabbing, and feeding off Greta is one of the few moments when Ferrare's portrayal of the elusive vampiress is relatable. In "Alucarda," the sealing of the girls' relationship in a blood pact is the beginning of the events that will lead to both girls' downfalls. It is this kind of curiosity that leads them directly to their dabbling in the occult and ultimately to their dealings with the Devil. There is a sense of mutual protection and shared affection in the depiction of the girls' love, but there's also an inverse sexuality and ultimately a destructive power to this love.
3. "Mary, Mary" deals with inheriting evil from one's family: Mary is the daughter of a mysterious man who taught her the ways of blood-drinking. "Alucarda" takes this suggestion one step further, implying that the titular orphan was predestined to channel evil forces, and that abandonment by her family led to the unleashing of these forces on the innocent people trying to help her. Mary's father casts his shadow over the entire film, from the presence of his eerie portrait (I love the fact that this is modeled on a publicity still of John Carradine, who plays Mary's father here, as Dracula in "House of Dracula") in Mary's home to the suspicion that he might not be dead after all. In contrast, Alucarda is never aware of her mother's legacy, and blindly stumbles into her diabolical activities.
4. "Alucarda" plays out in a well-defined, thoroughly realized setting with heaps of cultural texture, while such moments are rare in "Mary, Mary." In spite of repeated mentions of Mexican locations via dialogue and the casting of Mexican genre vet actors in supporting roles, there's very little in the way of local color in "Mary, Mary." The notable exception is during a street fair that Mary and Ben attend, in which the masked revelers are used very effectively to heighten suspense. In comparison, every frame in "Alucarda" is infused with exoticism, from the bloodied bandages that make up the nuns' habits, to the cave-like interiors of the convent, to the period costumes of the girls.
5. Science informs "Mary, Mary" while the supernatural is the focus of "Alucarda." Mary is not a traditional vampire--she employs a knife to cut her victims, she goes out in daylight, and it is suggested that her condition is a genetic inheritance. While there are some clever moments that challenge notions of traditional vampirism, such as Mary's murder of a fisherman on a sunny beach, there's just not enough tension derived from this challenging of commonly-held folklore. "Alucarda," on the other hand, directly states that science is weak in the face of overwhelming supernatural odds, setting up its well-meaning doctor for the shock of his life when he realizes that the increasingly gruesome exorcism efforts on the part of the nuns and priests tasked with taking care of Alucarda and Justine are actually the only appropriate means to fight their demonic possession.
6. "Mary, Mary" is a fairly restrained film--Mary spends much of her screen time in what approaches a fugue state, only showing emotion when she's about to kill. Restraint is nowhere to be found in "Alucarda," a movie whose Mondo Macabro DVD box art promises "more loud screaming than any [other] horror movie." This is not hyperbole, folks--Alucarda and Justine spend a not-insignificant portion of the script blaspheming, howling, and cackling. Moctezuma evokes a medieval passion play, with its direct moral message, graphic depictions of violence, and literal religious interpretation. While underlying themes may be ambiguous (this isn't a decrying of the girls' love, nor is it an endorsement), the intent is to make the story itself as clear-cut as possible.
"Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary" is pretty much a case study in what happens when an auteur director doesn't succeed in balancing a strong vision with a narrative that's intended to appeal to a broader audience. The unrealized potential--the movie that could have been--lurks under the surface of the finished product. It's to the benefit of all fans of subversive cinema that "Alucarda" exists as a testament to Moctezuma's unbridled imagination.












11 comments:
Awesome stuff, Empress! I have never seen MMBM, but ALUCARDA is one of my fave movies period. And though I'm not as much a fan of MANSION OF MADNESS, I can appreciate Moctezuma's surreal vision and symbology there.
I always read ALUCARDA as a sort of reverse morality play. It seems to me the supernatural forces that the church wants to combat and the girls' lesbian love are one and the same thing. Since homosexuality was (is) viewed by the Church as something blasphemous and inspired by Satan, the girls' pursuance of their love (and specifically the implied physical aspect of it) puts them in opposition to and direct enmity with the church. This is all played out in the lush symbology of deals with the devil, blood-filled coffins, and screaming blasphemy, and in the end the repression of these urges is destructive not only to the girls, but to the church as well. (Flaming nuns, etc.) Also in this reading the back-bending blood-raining dagger-worshipping orgy with the devil seems to stand in for the girls' first lesbian sexual encounter, symbolically.
In that way it's a tragedy, and the girls are the tragic heroes--standing up for their love even when it means going against the church and ultimately being destroyed by it.
Of course I'm probably stating the obvious to everyone but me, so I'll just close by saying I Love This Movie. :)
You could also argue that the girls' rebellion against church authority takes a form constructed by the church itself, with the repressive clergy calling its nemesis down upon itself by oppressing our antiheroines. As the Blue Oyster Cult sings, "If they really think we're the devil, then let's send them to hell."
It tells you something about Alucarda that it can inspire both Kate's excellent comparative essay and the Vicar's rich response. What it says about Mary, Mary I'll have to figure out for myself some time.
I'm glad you dug the write-up, Vicar! One of the great things about "Alucarda"--or really any of the best artistic works in any medium--is that it stands up to being viewed from a whole lotta angles. It's a remarkable accomplishment that I've seen this movie half a dozen times and come away with a slightly different "read" on it each time. It's great stuff!
Samuel, I really like this:
>>the girls' rebellion against church authority takes a form constructed by the church itself
Awesome observation, and further testament to the gift that keeps on giving in a fully-realized surrealist movie like this. There's no "one-to-one" symbolic connection, and each viewer brings his or her experience to the table in a discussion.
And--to be honest--you can skip "Mary, Mary." Except for the Mary/Greta scene--that was admittedly pretty spicy-awesome.
I'd been meaning to see Alacarda after a glowing review from Outside the Cinema, then caught The Mansion of Madness (aka Dr. Tarr's Torture Chamber) on my Mill Creek 50 pack and was really taken by surprise. The release on the Mill Creek pack is pretty sloppy, but the movie was highly entertaining in a darkly funny and surreal kinda way.
Now the question: which do I watch first, Mary, Mary or Alacarda? I love my golden tickets, but not if they make everything else taste like Hersheys.
Emily, if you liked "Mansion," you will REALLY enjoy "Alucarda!" "Mansion" is, in many ways, less accessible than "Alucarda" and (while I don't share this opinion!), many people find its humor off-putting. It makes me smile THISBIG to know you found it to be a witty and weird trip worth taking. I'd recommend watching "Alucarda" first, and then approaching "Mary, Mary." I think, without the context of Moctezuma's surrealist works, "Mary, Mary" is a toss-away murder story.
Alucarda is one of those films that I can't help but push on people -- pretty much every single category of stupifying cinematic geniusery gets a heaping helping here, and of Moctezuma's two classics it's the one I'd suggest without reservation. As you said, The Mansion of Madness is a film that can rub people the wrong way, and some of it doesn't really work for me (but that's only insofar as the stuff outside the asylum drags in comparison with the baroque phantasmagoria inside so I get a little antsy with the satire), but my god -- one of my all-time heroes Leonora Carrington was the art director! Case closed! Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary is certainly a film that suffers by comparison but I do enjoy it for what it is, and it's interesting for me to see Moctezuma work in a much more restrained way. That said, it's not a film I rewatch very often, whereas I suspect I rewatch either Alucarda or Mansion at least once a month -- in fact, I think I'm gonna do that right now...
Frau Kate, I don't comment enough here (rest assured, I read! Oh yes, I do!) but "Alucarda" brought me out of silent awe.
It is easily one of my favorite movies of all time. I mean, how can one not love nude back-bending Satanic nuns?
Fantastic post! I must ask: have you seen the kinda-sorta similarly-themed 1971 French film DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL? While certainly not as bloody, or screamy, as ALUCARDA, your insightful comments on the latter made me think of it immediately. It was inspired by the Parker-Hulme murder case, which was also the impetus for Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES.
I'm totally bumping Alucarda up the queue. The Mansion of Madness does drag a little with its woodland crazies opening, but once you get into that crazy costume party, the film takes on a whole new level of wacky surrealism. Looking forward to seeing more of his work.
Very interesting. Thanks.
DB, I'm glad you're spreading the good word about "Alucarda!" It's one of those movies that I really enjoy SO much that I have a hard time recommending it to people *just in case* they don't like it as much as I do. Honestly, I'm pretty cool about agreeing to disagree on topics of aesthetics MOST of the time, but it'd break my heart to know that someone thought this was a thumbs-down-er.
I'm honored and flattered that you've come out of your busy schedule of frippery, flagellation and feasting to give your approval here, Duke! And I'll take this moment to thank YOU for what's one of the most hilarious looks at this offbeat classic I've yet had the pleasure of reading.
Thanks, Will! I'm familiar with "Don't Deliver Us from Evil," but I've yet to watch it. I'm very curious to check it out, as I'm really fascinated in this kind of exploration of the dark side of female relationships. Thanks for the reminder to seek it out!
I'm convinced you'll dig it, Emily. I stand by my conviction that your open mind towards weird cinema is a wonderful thing. I'll eagerly await your write up once you've seen it!
Thanks, Rene! Glad you enjoyed.
Post a Comment