Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer

HENRY : PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER

Year : 1986
Director : John McNaughton
Genre : Thriller
Rating : ***1/2

This may come as a surprise, but I am the kind of person who loves movie lists and surveys, and whenever I read lists of the greatest thrillers, or scariest movies, I can guarantee 'Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer' would be near the top. So I was really looking forward to watching it, and now that I have, I feel a mixture of admiration for the film, but also a sense of slight disappointment.

The movie is reportedly based on the real life murders of American serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, and whilst the characterisation may be accurate, the rest of the story is complete fiction. Michael Rooker plays Henry; who after murdering his mother as a child, grows up addicted to killing innocent people. Tom Towles plays Henry's flatmate; the terrifying Otis, who is an incestuous, perverted and genuinely evil man. Finally completing the main cast is Becky (who moves in with the two men); played by Tracy Arnold, who is the sister of and target of Otis' perverted fantasies.

The movie was made and supposed to be released in the summer of 1986. Unfortunately, due it's violent content and depictions of murder and rape, it came under heavy scrutiny from the MPAA, and as such it wasn't released until 1990. When it was finally released, it was first of all cut to be a X rated film, but was ultimately released unclassified. The MPAA told the filmmakers that no amount of cuts or edits could reward the film with an R rating. Despite this, the response was positive, both critically and financially. Siskel and Ebert gave the movie two thumbs up and named it as one of the best movies of the year. 'Henry' earned over $600,000 during it's initial run, earning back it's relatively small $100,000 budget. The BBFC were equally critical of the film, and cut it severely. The actual uncut print of the film would not be seen in wide release until 2003, nearly 17 years after it was made. I have just watched the uncut version film on DVD, and this is what I thought of the controversial 'Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer'.

First of all, the main strength of the film is the cast. Michael Rooker is brilliant as the twisted Henry. He portrays a man who has looked into the abyss, and cannot find a way out again. Tracy Arnold is equally as good as Becky, the girl who takes a liking to Henry and may seem to be able to change Henrys psychotic ways. However, the starring performance is by Tom Towles, who plays Otis, the quiet but clearly insane brother of Tracy. He is the most terrifying character in the film, and his acts could easily be seen as more horrific than Henry's. I'm not saying that this justifies Henry's actions, but in comparison, Otis is just as mentally twisted.

Another strength of the film is John MacNaughton clearly knows how to film a violent and disturbing scene in a completely non exploitative way. Unlike previous filmmakers like Meir Zarchi or Abel Ferrara, MacNaughton knows just how much to show the viewer so that he/she is disturbed enough but not anxious enough to turn away or even turn off the film. There are of course, highly disturbing scenes, including a number of prolonged rape scenes and scenes of bodily dismemberments. But these are not done in the same vein as exploitation films like 'I Spit On Your Grave' or 'Last House On The Left' but more in the style of 'The Silence Of The Lambs' or 'Se7en'.

However, with all of it's good points, there are also bad ones. My main problem with the film is that after all of the things I had read about it, and the stories of it's struggle to be released uncut, I really didn't see what all the fuss was about. Yes as I say, there are disturbing ideas and scenes. But nothing that I really haven't seen before, and I have seen them done a lot better. When I first watched 'I Spit On Your Grave' or 'The Last House On The Left', I could very clearly see why the film was banned. But, watching 'Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer' today with my fiancée, it didn't strike me as anything controversial or problematic. I do understand that at the time, nothing as violent as that may have been seen 1986 (although I highly doubt it), and may have been considered extremely shocking. But what I don't understand is how it took so long for the BBFC to release it uncut, before movies like 'Saw' and 'Hostel' were released fully uncut. Both of these movies are much stronger and graphic than 'Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer', so why did it take so long for this to be uncut?

 Another problem is the fact that the murders that Henry commits don't really seem to be justified. I understand that he murdered his mother due to the fact that she was a prostitute and beat him as a child. But the rest of the murders aren't given any reasoning, which makes you feel that innocent people are dying for no specific purpose. This does cross the boundaries into cruelty, and instead of giving Henry a justification, it just shows that he is a cruel and evil man, whereas I think the films intention is to make Otis as the absolute villain of the film. In this sense, the film doesn't really seem to be a 'portrait' of a serial killer, rather, 'a day in the life' of a serial killer.

 The movie does end with one of the most downbeat endings of all tine, up there with 'Se7en' and 'The Vanishing', and I won't tell you what it is. But it does leave you with the feeling that maybe people don't change, and no matter how much therapy or counselling someone can have, 'A leopard never changes his spots'. It makes you wonder whether counselling in prison and releasing prisoners early due to finding their errors of their ways may not be such a good idea.

'Henry : Portrait Of A Serial Killer' is a film worth watching despite all of this. The acting is terrific and the direction is fabulous. Just don't expect everything you've heard or read about it, you may end up feeling a bit disappointed.