Retrospective: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1990)
Ted Prigge
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1990)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: John MacNaughton
Writers: Richard Fire and John MacNaughton
Starring: Michael Rooker, Tom Towles, Tracy Arnold
I imagine if "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" had been directed by,
say, David Lynch. He would have made a big joke out of it, and gotten
itself off on the fact that it's about a man who kills for no reason
whatsoever. He'd have made it into a black comedy, and thus destroyed the
entire effect of the film on the viewer. John MacNaughton (who would go on
to direct less controversial fare, like "Mad Dog and Glory" and the recent
"Wild Things") takes a completely realistic and serious look at it and the
results are not only disgusting, fowl, and wretched, but also ingenius,
wonderful, and just plain amazing. No one said you had to be clean to be
intelligent.
"Henry" is a portrait of a guy named, uh, Henry (Michael Rooker), who lives
in Chicago in a terrible apartment with a guy named Otis (Tom Towles),
who's not a serial killer, but knows that Henry went to prison for
murdering his mom when he was a teenager. The two met in prison, and we
discover that Otis has a parole officer who has gotten him a job working at
a gas station. We come to realize that neither of them really knows the
other's dark secret, Otis's being that he's a sex offender.
As the film opens up, we see Otis picking his sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold),
up from the train station, and taking her to live with he and Henry. Becky
is running away from a husband, as well as a whole other life (Becky was a
stripper), and thinks she can find refuge with the two. She discovers that
Henry killed his mom early on, but instead of being repulsed, finds herself
drawn to him sexually.
As the film goes on, Otis discovers that Henry is a serial killer, and
instead of freaking out, decides he wants to become one as well. We know
that Henry isn't a serial killer who kills for a reason, or has some kind
of overall method or print that he leaves on every victim. In the
beginning, we learn that Henry has killed a whole bunch of people just in
the opening minutes, but that all of them were innocent people. So Henry
shows Otis the ropes of being a successful serial killer (successful in
that you never get caught), but telling him to kill people via different
methods, and never leaving anything to incriminate one's self.
The film is apparently loosely based on the life of a real serial killer,
Henry Lee Lucas, and it almost looks like a film crew sat in with him,
followed him around, and then editied it all together (although we know
that Michael Rooker, the guy who plays Henry, is an accomplished actor,
most recently seen as the sheriff in John Singleton's "Rosewood," so we
know it's not realistic). MacNaughton's direction is extremely bland,
although I don't mean that negatively: he portrays Henry in a very
realistic manner, not adding any wild directing techniques to what he does,
and because of this digs deeper into the character than any other kind of
film would have.
The film was made in 1986, but wasn't released until 1990 because the film
is so controversial. It's easy to see why: the film is unrelentless in
portraying Henry without any subjectivity that every scene is eerily
realistic, so realistic that perhaps someone out there might view the film
as a "How To..." on being a serial killer. But if anything, the realism
scares anyone out of the possibility of becoming a serial killer, because
that means you have to be as screwed up as Henry is.
There's one scene that really got me: Henry and Otis attack a family in
their home, with Henry shooting the entire thing on a video camera. It's
an unbroken shot, and it's all the more frightening when you learn that the
woman playing the mother, who gets fondled by Otis, went into shock after
the scene was over. It's one of the most frightening things I've ever
seen, and it would have been really cheap if it had been screwed over with
by some directorial interruptance.
As unrelentless as this film is in being realistic, there is one technique
that MacNaughton uses that not only causes the film to become less gory,
but also to become more scary. In the beginning, we see a bunch of corpses
of people Henry killed recently, and in the background, we can faintly hear
the sounds of what transpired when he was killing them. Instead of showing
the scenes, MacNaughton adds even more scariness to the film. Is it
actually scarier than seeing the murders? Of course, it is.
And it doesn't hurt that Michael Rooker is incredible in his performance.
There's a moment in a diner where he seems just like a normal everyday
person, paying his bills, and about to go on his way. But then the film
cuts to later, and everybody in the place is dead. There are other scenes
where he's friendly but not too creepy, but others when he's just scary as
hell to even look at. His performance is unrelentless, just like the film
is, and never pulls its punches, much like the film (again). The others,
Tom Towles and Tracy Arnold, are also great, but not as great as Rooker
(probably why Rooker actually has a semi-career).
If there's a problem, it's that we never really understand Henry. The film
doesn't dig down into why he does things, and we never really get to know
what Henry's about. But isn't not really knowing everything about a person
what a portrait is? The film simply portrays Henry for who he is, and
there are no reasons applied to why he's a serial killer. Yes, we learn
that he killed his mother because she was a "whore," but then why does he
kill a waitress at a diner who merely rings up his bill?
By not giving reasons, the film actually becomes stronger. We learn to
notice things for ourselves, like how Henry may not be able to really
function with people, and anyone who gets too close to him, or even ask of
him any friendly compliments, may ellicit some homicidal tendencies in
Henry. Or maybe it's just that he can't help it, and he can't explain why
he does things. Instead of being bogged down by some director who wants to
put an imprint on this film, MacNaughton is wise and doesn't allow anything
to interfere with the portrait of this horrific and unexplainable human
being.
MY RATING (out of 4): ***1/2
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/