Written (with spoilers) by Stephanie Rogers.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane attempts to send a feminist message. Unfortunately, that message spontaneously combusts at the end of the film. It gets so much right, though, especially in its depiction of sexual harassment, catcalling, stalking, and society’s obsession with women who embrace virginity versus women who embrace their sexuality. In fact, all these boys love Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) because they see her as a conquest, a beautiful, “pure” teenage girl who functions as a prize, a trophy. In essence, they believe that the boy who finally gets to sleep with Mandy Lane will also get those coveted bragging rights, a boost to his masculinity cred—and patriarchy loves nothing more than requiring men to constantly reaffirm their manhood to their bros. For instance, when they talk about Mandy Lane, they say things like, “I’ve got first dibs,” which effectively mimics the locker room talk we’ve lately come to associate with fraternity emails showcasing sexual assault tips.
Another viewer could easily dismiss all this as harmless “joking,” but thankfully, the film allows us to experience things through Mandy’s viewpoint. We see her pull away from boys who try to kiss her, who pull the strap of her shirt down, who put their hands in her hair. We watch her spin around when she realizes someone outside her window is watching her change her clothes. She appears uncomfortable most of the time, as if she feels somewhat responsible for the actions of the boys around her. I imagine many women can identify too closely with Mandy Lane, asking themselves, “Am I dressing too provocatively? Is this harassment entirely my fault?” It’s the narrative of rape culture, one that both men and women have come to internalize: if a woman doesn’t want to be noticed, then she shouldn’t walk around looking so hot all the time.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane manages to convey that toxic rape culture narrative in subtle ways, like when she’s alone with a boy who says, “Can I hold your hand? Can I kiss you?” and she turns her head to let him kiss her cheek. I felt my stomach turn during this scene; she was alone with a boy who clearly had sexual intentions, and Mandy Lane’s cheek move seemed like an appeasement, like a way to delay any unwanted sexual contact without making him angry. Unfortunately, it’s also a move that men often read as coy, as “teasing” … and it puts women in another double bind: she doesn’t want to piss him off and risk him potentially hurting her, but she also doesn’t want to do anything sexual with him. This kind of behavior gets women labeled “teases” all the time, and it’s a way to take responsibility away from men who believe, incorrectly, that the slightest amount of sexual contact—kissing, hand holding—means a woman automatically wants to take things further.
The director (Jonathan Levine) balances Mandy Lane-as-Madonna by including two sexually active high school girls-as-Whores: Marlin (Melissa Price) and Chloe (Whitney Able), who’ve both had some sort of sexual contact with the three boys in their clique—Bird, Red, and Jake—at least enough to point out who has the smallest penis in the group. Marlin, Chloe, and the three bros decide to spend a weekend at Red’s ranch, and they invite Mandy along. For some reason, Mandy agrees to go (under the guise of making new friends), but it isn’t clear until the end of the film why Mandy truly accepts the invitation. For whatever reason, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane turns into a lightweight home invasion massacre out of nowhere, but it still makes some thoughtful commentary on bodysnarking and teen sexuality before ruining itself with conventional horror movie tropes.
Interestingly, the only locker room talk happens with the women after their respective cheerleading practice (Marlin and Chloe) and track workout (Mandy Lane, who literally runs away from a boy during her run, her former friend Emmet). Chloe calls Marlin “chubby” when Marlin shows off her new bellybutton ring to which Marlin responds, “I’m not fat.” Mandy watches these interactions almost always in silence as if making a mental note for herself. The bodysnarking happens again between Chloe and Marlin, once they’re ranch bound, during a trip to the bathroom at a rest stop; Marlin says to Chloe, “You really need to trim that. It’s like Sherwood’s Forest down there.” Chloe gives her a “whatever” look, but later, we find Chloe trimming her pubic hair on the toilet at the ranch. Again, Mandy Lane never participates in the bodysnarking but listens and watches quietly instead.
Once they hit the ranch, though, the film begins to unravel. It goes way too far in its Virgin/Whore depiction, painting both Chloe and Marlin as sex-crazed and shallow. (Marlin gives a hand job and a blowjob in the span of 20 minutes but not without flashing her breasts to a man at the rest stop, too, and Chloe won’t stop talking about banging the local ranch hand, Garth.) Mandy Lane, on the other hand, watches quietly, makes no judgments or accusations, and appears Madonna-esque and mysterious, almost too sticky sweet. We know something isn’t right here, and I thought at first Mandy Lane represented the virginal, Say No to Drugs, Final Girl from conventional horror films.
When one of the boys steals a fuse and shuts off all the lights at the ranch, Mandy Lane gets stuck fending off another boy in the dark, this time Jake, who leans in repeatedly to kiss her. Interestingly, Mandy Lane almost never says “no,” but her body language communicates how little she wants to do with Jake. This narrative suggests, importantly, that some men and boys think nothing of continuing to push and push until a woman fiercely says “no.” Again, that rape culture narrative plays out here, and because the film operates from Mandy Lane’s perspective, the audience feels bad for her and (hopefully) feels less bad for, and even angry with, the boys for making her feel so unsafe.
Honestly, the film could’ve ended for me somewhere around there as an astute commentary on how rape culture impacts the actions of both men and women. It could’ve ended as an astute commentary on how bullying and bodysnarking (especially by other women) impacts a woman’s self-esteem. But the writer (Jacob Forman) and director decided to take All the Boys Love Mandy Lane in a boring direction that tried way too hard for a shock ending. The body count racks up. Both the men and the women die, taking away any potential interpretation that the killer is merely punishing the men for their actions toward the women. Instead, the deaths of Chloe and Marlin—the Whores—suggest that anyone with a sexual appetite at all deserves punishment.
Other viewers might not need their fun horror films to carry A Message, but this one went, for me, from an epic feminist masterpiece to mundane, sloppy, and forced. Ultimately, Mandy Lane turns out to be way less innocent than she appears, and the film makes the audience hate her. And when a film makes the audience hate the character who represents the film’s important themes—the insidiousness of rape culture, for instance—then that film fails tremendously to say much of anything.
Stephanie Rogers lives in Brooklyn, New York, where she sometimes watches entire seasons of television in one sitting.
Hi Stephenie, I just saw this film the other night after hearing so much about it and wanted to weigh in. I’m unfamiliar with your other articles, so please
forgive my ignorance if I make a wrongful assumption.
First off, I want to note that even though what I’m about to say sound like I’m
disagreeing with you, we’re more then likely on the same page in terms of
overall feelings. I like it when horror movies move beyond cliche, and I’m not
really that fond of the idea that every character in the film has to die
(Particularly the women) just because it’s a horror film. ( “The Cabin In The Woods” is pretty much my thesis statement for horror movies, if you haven’t seen it, do so.)
I think you made some excellent points about how the film conveys the male gaze and sense of entitlement towards Mandy, particularly in the parts that talk about her as a kind of “goal” to achieve. The guys in this are all
remarkably uninhibited with their intentions, and yet Mandy is so guarded that I can’t help but think it’s trying to literalize the fallacy of the male gaze.
Not once does Mandy seem comfortable with this beauty that was seemingly thrust upon her, and all the boys (Except for Garth the ranch hand) basically assume that her beauty is obviously within their rights to pursue, so much so that none of them attempt to learn even the basic things about her life. Since most horror films treat female sexuality as either something for the viewers, or something that can lead men to their doom, I thought Mandy was a welcome subversion because the hypersexual nature of the guys and her shyness makes it clear how uncomfortable she feels.
My reading of the “appeasement” part was similar in that, since Bird was very vocal about him having “first dibs,” it’s hard not to see his “honesty” in as thinking that being a “nice guy” would endear her to him. But it also demonstrates the different male/female perspectives because I didn’t sense the same kind of tension about worrying that he would become aggressive if she rejected him. While a fair assertion to make given them being alone on the road, I think it’s interesting to note that every time a guy fails to get her to reciprocate, they actually DON’T call her a bitch or attack her sexuality, but simply move on to one of the other girls with the intention of trying again.
I was quite surprised by this, and I think it bears consideration that because
they CHOOSE to keep trying, even after the audience has seen she’s objectively not interested, their deaths can no longer attributed to her “tempting them,” but to their sense of male entitlement. In this way the film
doesn’t indict their characters, (As do similar ones when a male calling a
woman a “whore” show’s their lack of respect as a personal issue) nor
does it excuse their actions. Interestingly enough, the only time their
characters appear indicted is when they treat each other or the other, more
sexual girls, badly, and as you noted, Mandy takes all this in rather then then
become a part of it. I think this paint her less of a “Madonna” figure, and more of an audience surrogate, watching the effects of their callousness play out in order to emphasize the cruelty of the situation.
I would also bring up a couple points concerning how the other female characters are treated, such as the way Jake refuses to reciprocate with Marlin after she goes down on him. He says “no way” so nonchalantly that the double standard of sexuality is immediately apparent, and the fact that he leaves her in the barn in order to go back inside and presumably continue hitting on Mandy goes even further in supporting the film’s premise that unchecked male sexuality is harmful and not “natural. I mean, he literally just got a blowjob, and yet he’s still determined to get into Mandy’s panties. It’s even more damaging when you remember that he did all this because the girls belittled his manhood, and that Marlin tries to be the comforting one, only to wind up being used like a tool to prop up his self esteem. In this way I’d prefer to see Marlin’s subsequent attack as less “sluts must die” and
more “people who use others just for sex damage them.” And there is
even a bitter irony in the fact that when Jake goes out to find her, she’s now
being used as bait to kill him.
The other thing that bears mentioning I think is Chloe’s breakdown and the way Mandy accompanies her to the bathroom. I’ve read a couple interpretations of this as either her seeing the human side of Chloe in her anguish, or her playing a part in order to get her to trust her (The way Chloe dies later in the film could likewise indicate either tenderness or cruelty) but it’s the way Mandy keeps stroking her hair as a way to get her to calm down that struck me most. Whether the scene is meant to invoke a sexual connection or not, it strikes me as played remarkably straight (pun) instead of for exploitation like many horror films tend to do. This is the only scene in the movie where two female characters are alone together, and while I’m not sure it past the bechdel test, I still think it’s notable the way it depicts the toll of trying to look attractive to men–who dismiss someone when their eyes fall elsewhere–and yet she doesn’t lash out at Mandy for that.
In fact, it’s remarkable how for a movie about female sexuality and the male gaze, there is only one scene of nudity, and NO actual intercourse. Marlin and Chloe are characterized by their blasse’ attitude about sex, but Marlin is the only one to actually initiate sexual acts. I think this is purposeful, as it makes the idea of sex more present then the act itself, making the subtext literal, so to speak. In this way, the film doesn’t distract from it’s themes with
exploitation, and can really lead to reflecting on their meaning for men and women.
If it were framed as a coming of age story, I could these subjects being conveyed emotionally, but because it is a HORROR film, it feels appropriate that that damage should be conveyed literally and viscerally. The notable difference is that rather then their just being a maniac with a shotgun on the loose, this killer is revealed early on in in a way that makes it feel less like a
“slasher,” and more like a calculated vengeance-as-social-commentary tale.
I know we each have our own threshold for what we can stand to see onscreen, and that telling someone just to ignore something that bothers them is unhelpful, but I want to bring something to attention as both a feminist, and a horror fan. When you say “Honestly, the film could’ve ended for me right there,” it appears you’re saying that the everything that occurs after, the violence,the suspense, the actual HORROR of the thing, would have been better left on the cutting room floor.
Does this really feel like a fair request of a film whose mission statement is to
HORRIFY the watcher? Are you not PARTIALLY agreeing when you watch a horror film that your intention is to let it horrify you? Not to use too blunt of an analogy, but if I sat down to watch “Bridesmaids” and came away
saying “Yeah, I liked it up till the part with the brides and bachelor parties,” would you not think me a little daft for wanting the main mechanics exorcised? As a feminist I see why not wanting to witness those characters being dispatched in such brutal manner (I thought the bit with Marlin and the shotgun barrel was classic slasher movie misogyny) but as a movie-watcher I would feel that everything up till that point was just observations, hardly any real plot or narrative. And in my opinion, a message without a narrative isn’t a story, it’s a lecture.
This is where I think the feminist message is fundamentally at odds with the horror movie forumla, because effective horror is designed to override meaning or message in favor of producing fear or revulsion. They often say that the best horror films are the ones which aren’t overburdened with backstory or complex rules, because these things dilute our experience with questions, plot holes, and ultimately break us back into the reality that we are, yes, watching a film.
I don’t want this to come off as a criticism, but more of a question. You said
you didn’t need all your horror films to carry a message, and the one in Mandy Lane was actually good until all the killing started. What would you say about a film that did the reverse though? One where the movie didn’t have a message initially, yet over the course started to develop one at the expense of it being entertaining? Don’t you think that sometimes, trying to extract meaning from everything dampens the ability of the story to compel us?
The ending of the film is a horror movie ending, one where emotion overcomes meaning in order to give the character a resolution at the expense of the others. This is the opposite of what feminism stands for, and so I can see why it “cannibalizes” the message. I get that, but here’s the question; If All The Boys Love Mandy Lane ended with Mandy as an innocent, wouldn’t it be suggesting that she had no control over her life? That like the usual final girl, she was forced by the killer to become something she’s not in order to survive? Mandy says “You should never do anything for me” to Emmet at the end, and even though that sounds like she’s rejecting mutuality, within the context of the film isn’t she ultimately more saying that chasing after her, killing for her, and putting her on a pedestal is foolish, dangerous, and ultimately deadly?
Doesn’t she spare the one guy who expresses no interest in her beauty, even though he’s still capable of being a killer like her?
I don’t see Mandy Lane as a femme fatale by the end, nor do i perceive her as a victim, either. If you hate her at the end it seems like it’s only out of a sense that she’s gone too far to protect herself by seeking vengeance on the other kids, but that has to be in there or it’s not a horror movie. Mandy ultimately navigates through the threat of male entitlement, though it pains her to do so, and lets another man take up arms against them from his own similar obsession with protecting her. She can’t fight the male gaze, so she let’s it destroy itself in order to be free. She’s the living, breathing proof that a women doesn’t “ask for it,” whether “it” is her beauty, or the men who believe it’s their right to possesses that beauty, and how this assumption by males inevitably leads to disaster for all parties. And in a market that regularly turns women’s into objectified violence targets, I think a horror film that can do something new with them is pretty insightful.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and hope you respond sometime soon!
that disgusting whore!
she had sex with all three boys?
Now, I am a shia iraqi Arab, male, and I can tell you that in my country she would be serverly punished!
I’m lead to believe you didn’t read my comment in depth, as you’ll realize I explicitly stated that the movie actually features no real intercourse, and the only sexual acts are preformed by the same couple. So, go back and re-read it and then we can talk.
And I think your use of the word whore in this context is misleading. If that were the case then all three males in the movie would also be classified as whores, due to their highly sexualized actions and the fact that they keep offering themselves to Mandy.
IF TRUE, why are YOU at bitchflicks? Im not buying it!
Would a real Shia Iraqi Arab admit they had been here? Likely not. Any rational person knows that human beings are still caught up in gender identified cultural constructs and Arab countries are some of the absolute worst. Are you here psyoping? LOL
For me personally, I still think it the film does drive home a message about feminism. You can argue that Marlin and Chloe’s death and Mandy’s survival is a suggestion by the film makers that sexually active women are in the wrong, but at the same time, Marlin and Chloe weren’t exactly opposed towards the kind of sexist attitude the boys had towards them and Mandy Lane. In fact, Chloe even tries to help the boys get their “chances” with Mandy by convincing her to go to the party in the ranch.
And I do think there is more to (spoiler alert) Mandy’s role in murdering her “friends” than just for the shock value. Whenever we see Mandy, we’re positioned to see her the way the teenage boys see her, as this pretty, quiet, unattainable girl who is out of her element. She’s often seen in slow motion, with the breeze blowing through her hair and the sun shining on her, and the only moments she ever showed genuine vulnerability and personality was when she was around Garth, a man who she seemed to have been entranced by on first glance. Whenever the others are fooling around doing crazy things, she’s often seen politely declining the chance to join in and simply watches from a distance. It seems like those scenes are just enforcing the fact that Mandy is “pure”, but when the film flashes back to one of those scenes at the very end of the film after that crazy twist, Mandy silently observing her friends suddenly has a much more sinister twist to it.
I think the fact that she ended up being a mastermind behind the murders and that, at the end of the day, she was the only one who was capable enough to kill her serial killer friend Emmet even though we are constantly positioned to view her as an innocent girl, tells us that 1) All because you’re pure and chaste does not make you an innocent, helpless child, and 2) That a drop dead gorgeous woman should not be considered as a mere trophy for men. Because at the end of the day, even though the guys thought they were schmoozing and manipulating their way into the panties of poor defenceless Mandy, it turned out she was in control of the film’s events the whole time. And considering her emotional detachment towards others and her unusually calm demeanour throughout the traumatic events of the film, I think it’s a twist we all should’ve seen coming.
Great article. I think I disagree on some minor points. I do agree that the depiction of the women besides Mandy is problematic, but I think saying anyone who shows sexual desire in the movie is punished might be a little bit of a stretch. Those girls’ defining traits didn’t seem to be their sexuality, it was their cruelty. The sexuality was just an agent of that. But I definitely see your point.
That being said, I mostly think this movie does work, in a very shaky (probably accidental) way, as a very dark semi-comedic feminist horror flick, in that I feel like Mandy Lane, by the end of the film, is raging against “the gaze”. Whether it’s the “nice guy” who “respects women” and therefore is entitled to sex or the absolute pig, Mandy spurns them all in the most violent way possible. Even at the end when its shown that she’s in cahoots with her friend that then feels entitled to her, she spurns him just as quickly (“I think I’ll finish high school first” was a pretty great line).
I guess where we differ is, I didn’t think the movie wanted us to hate Mandy Lane by the end of it, I thought we were supposed to take dark joy in her shirking the Mary Sue costume she’d been wearing the whole time. Even as a murderer, amongst mean body-shaming girls, “nice guys”, “friend zone” people, misogynist pigs, and other detractors of feminism, she seems to come off as the most likable of the bunch. To me at least. Maybe I’m radical. lol
Saw the movie last night and read your review. I think you are off on a few points. First, essentially virginal Garth is almost killed and equally virginal Emmet is killed after Mandy betrays him. The movie purposefully sheds no light as to Mandy’s motivations at all (did you notice her parents appear to be dead/gone and she is being raised by her aunt and cousin? That intimates that she has a dark past). I got the far greater impression that Mandy is either wholly psychopathic or simply wanted revenge on all of those who would abuse another – male and female alike. To the extent people were killed had any specific meaning, I think it is far more related to their general poor treatment of others than anything to do with sex. The stoner of the group didn’t really have sex with or inappropriately come on to anyone (his feelings for Mandy seemed limited to bragging outside of her earshot), and he died just as brutally. I don’t think that the message was as simple as “sex is bad.”
I never got any impression at all that the jock was trying to or had any designs to rape Mandy when they were walking to the house. I certainly didn’t read that Mandy used the cheek kiss as a means of deterring his advances. I took it as her exploring herself to some extent. The only one who clearly got rapey at any point in time was that one ass hole with the long hair.
Frankly, it is impossible to know what Mandy actually wanted. She does kiss Emmet at the end, who at that point, had a completely asexual relationship. At times, she seemed to come on to Garth AND the other blonde in her group. She stripped to her undies willingly at the lake, despite the fact that at the earlier pool party, she remained clothed. I think a big part of this was that Mandy had no idea as to where she was sexually – including possible attraction to her own gender. Given the ending, you can’t dispute that for being largely virginal, Mandy appeared to manipulate everyone with her sexuality.
Finally, what is your take on why she keeps Garth alive at the end? To cover for her? Because she genuinely likes (likes-like?) him? To see if she can use her mystique to manipulate an adult.