Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Tagline: ’He’s not Freddy. He’s not Jason. He’s real.’
Running Time: 83 minutes

Film Quality: 4/5
Gore Content: 3/5
Entertainment Value: 3/5
Originality: 4/5

Introduction

Every once in a while a film comes along that is out of its time. The 80s saw the slasher movie boom, very colourful, glossy, disposable films that copied and parodied one another. Very annoying, vacuous characters who, in many cases, you were pleased to see the back of as they became perishable goods for the latest masked maniac. Then, out of nowhere, comes ‘Henry’. Here the role is reversed as you follow a very real everyman who happens to be a serial killer of victims that you don’t know but pass every day in the street, the shopper, the housewife, the café owner. This was terrifyingly real and proved to be incredibly jarring in a ‘style over substance’ decade.

In a Nutshell

Loosely based on the exploits of notorious serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, Michael Rooker plays the titular character who lives with his flatmate Ottis and, unbeknownst to him, murders people for fun in his spare time. When Ottis’ sister comes to stay and changes their simple dynamic the film descends into the underbelly of Chicago as Ottis joins in with Henry’s extra-curricular activities, placing Becky in serious trouble.

So, what’s good about it?

The horror genre hadn’t seen a film this raw since ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’. Co-written and directed by John McNaughton on a budget of little over $100,000 it is low budget in the extreme with amateur actors. It’s almost cinema verite in style and as far removed from most typical ‘slasher’ films whilst remaining within the same genre. The opening vignettes juxtapose shots of Henry going about his daily business, having lunch and driving around with lingering shots of the aftermath of his preferred pastime, four women and one man, whilst ambient noise of the act of murder including screams, gunshots and struggling can be heard in the background. It’s incredibly effective and, despite no act of violence being shown packs a punch a hundred times more powerful than any murderkilldeath in ‘Friday the 13^th’.

The films preoccupation with Henry predates ‘Silence of the Lambs by five years and its relentless darkness is ahead of ‘Se7en’ by nine years. But it lacks the gloss of those two films and a lot of this is in the grimy details. Their apartment has mildew and damp, the chairs are riddled with cigarette burns and smoke damage. The whole film is like a glimpse into the dark and disturbed mind of Henry with minimal lighting and raw sound.

Terrifying performance by Rooker

It’s interesting that Michael Rooker wasn’t the first choice for ‘Henry’. The casting team originally wanted an older actor who would be a father figure to Becky but what a stroke of luck they landed Rooker because he is electrifying. He plays him more as a sociopath than a psychopath, he knows the difference between right and wrong, such as his reaction when Ottis very nearly assaults his sister and when he follows a woman walking her dog and very clearly changes his mind about murdering her. He also gives him a certain awkwardness around people, particularly with Becky, shuffling around and putting his coat back on when Becky is trying to seduce him. Rumour has it that he remained in character on set which must have scared the brown stinky stuff out of everybody on set. You can see why people might warm to him as a character, he blends into the background, but you firmly believe that he is capable of committing the random acts of violence you ultimately see him commit.

The violence when it does arrive is sudden, largely unplanned and utterly terrifying. There is no ‘trademark’ machete, knife or chainsaw, here we see random, everyday items become weapons including a comb, a broken bottle, a TV, wiring – it is frightening and, as we’ll see later, a lot of this trouble the BBFC. If you like your horror ‘horrific’ and challenging rather than blood soaked then this is the film for you.

What about the bad?

It depends on your point of view but this is certainly not a date movie! It is very difficult to watch at times and sets its stall with one of its first images. The image of the prostitute sitting on a toilet, naked, covered in blood with a broken bottle sticking out her mouth was so strong that the 30 second pan was completely removed by the BBFC. I can imagine some people finding difficulty getting past this particular image.

Watching a particularly nasty scene

It really is a nasty film, there is no other word for it, that’s what it’s supposed to be. McNaughton is showing us a violent serial killer, warts and all, and his equally, if not more psychopathic friend. In one particular scene, and I’ll come on to this in more detail in the next section, we witness the murder and rape of an entire family. It’s not bad in the sense that it’s not well made, that it’s out of place or that it makes the film worse than it is…far from it. It’s just that we’re talking about a truly repulsive scene that does not try to entertain or amuse in the way a slasher film might. It challenges you to ask yourself what type of enjoyment you’re getting from a film like this and that is quite a question to ask.

These two paragraphs could easily be put in the ‘What’s good about it’ section but it really is worth pointing out that horror rarely gets as challenging as this. For me it’s a plus point for the film, horror should be challenging and as an adult you should be able to watch a confrontational film, not to enjoy but to have this type of question asked of you and for you to respond internally. But for non-genre fans this would be a turn off and I would find that a shame for what is a very strong film.

Release History

VERY controversial! This film was made in 1986 but didn’t see distribution in the UK until 1991 when Electric Pictures submitted it to the BBFC. What happened next is almost as shocking and controversial as the film itself.

Around 24 seconds was cut for its limited cinema release from the (at this point I should say bloodless) family massacre scene but for home video this still bothered the BBFC, particularly the classification (or should that be censorship?) body’s director James Ferman. The bottle in the face scene was removed by Electric prior to BBFC submission, it was felt that the shot would pre-dispose the censors to thinking that this film would be problematic, but Ferman was still not happy with the family scene.

What was so problematic was that the scene was being viewed by the audience on a television set that was being watched by Henry and Ottis. The positioning of the camera was such that the violence was clearly sexual in nature and, though the BBFC as a collective body was ready to let the scene go in the same truncated form as the cinema, Ferman overruled this and demanded it be cut further. To paper over the cuts, he inserted, halfway through, a shot of Henry and Ottis watching the scene. Effectively what he did was re-edit the scene, clearly an action beyond the remit of a body whose sole function was supposed to be to classify films.

The actual gore didn't bother the BBFC

What it also did was alter the context of the scene. Initially we don’t realise that what we’re doing is the same as what Henry and Ottis are doing, watching this graphic violence, including the post-mortem molestation of one of the female victims, for entertainment. In its uncut form this only dawns on us at the end of the scene but thanks to Ferman’s meddling the rug is pulled from underneath too early and we, as an audience, are no longer complicit – we don’t question why we’re watching the scene, we’re just disgusted that they’re watching it. It’s disgraceful and Ferman had no right to do this to somebody else’s work. The film suffered a total of 113 seconds of cuts for its 1993 release.

In 2002 Electric tried again, submitting an uncut print but still failing in its goal with 48 seconds missing but at least the family massacre was no longer re-edited. Yes, it was still missing ten seconds but at least the director’s original intention was there. It wouldn’t see an uncut release until 2003.

Any Themes?

There is a lot here that challenges the audiences to question what they get out of watching violent scenes. Yes, it could be considered hypocritical to use violence and violent images to preach a high and mighty moral but I don’t think that was the intention. What they’ve done is removed the fantasy element, what makes the more traditional slashers so appealing and ‘safe’, and screamed at the audience ‘look…this is what death really looks like, what do you think of it now?’.

Take ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’…you never once identify with Freddy but he’s the ‘hero’ of the film, the one we pay good money to go and see. In the scene where we watch the home video family murder we are complicit in what they’ve done, we’re doing what they’re doing and that’s watching violence for the sake of entertainment. The safety net of fantastical violence is removed so McNaughton is asking a very frightening and self-referential question which is just part of what makes this film so uncomfortable and problematic for the censors.

Cultural Impact

It’s a difficult one to approach. Yes it predates other serial killer obsessed films such as ‘Silence of the Lambs’ and ‘SE7en’ but it’s a stretch to say it inspired them. I think what it did do was open a few eyes to what the BBFC were doing at the time and their over-officious approach to what they saw as their role of moral guardian which wasn’t the case. They were simply there to classify but were more renowned for censorship. I don’t think it’s a massive coincidence that after ‘Henry’ was released in its cut form, censorship started to relax.

The film that gave us the moody Michael Rooker

What it did do was launch the career of the brilliant and reliable Michael Rooker. Now a veteran of 114 film and TV credits, including prominent roles in Oscar winning films such as ‘JFK’, Hollywood blockbusters such as ‘Clliffhanger’ and the upcoming ‘Guardians of the Galaxy 2’, this film gave the world a great character actor.

Final Thoughts

A breath of foul air in a decade where horror became very stale, it’s a shame, and probably a touch ironic, that the world didn’t really get to see it until the 90s. Gritty, nasty, dark and morally bankrupt in tone it is incredibly difficult to watch (hence my relatively low ‘entertainment value’ rating) but if you can manage to stomach it you are rewarded with a bold, brave and stark example of a film that goes against the trend. This is no typical 80s slasher film, in fact its anti-slasher if there is such a thing, an affront to what horror films, enjoyable though some of them were, had become and a throwback to the days of ‘Texas Chain Saw’, ‘Last House on the Left’ and ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ where raw film making and genuine terror were on show.

Memorable Quotes

Henry: “Yeah…I killed my Mama.”

Ottis: “I’d like to kill somebody”
Henry: “Say that again.”
Ottis: “I’d like to kill somebody.”
Henry: “Let’s me and you go for a ride.”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’, ‘Deranged’, ‘Peeping Tom’