Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Review:

This is the only film that has ever offended my college roommate Robby. Although, I’m not sure offended is the right word. Perhaps a better word is ‘disgusted.’ Now, a little background on Robby – I lived with him for two years in College and I can say assuredly that his sense of humor is the most depraved, raunchy, and vile I have ever encountered. Needless to say, we had a lot of good laughs together. So when Robby told me about how this film affected him, I decided I had to see it. What sort of sick phantasmagoric film would this have to be to upset Robby?

So I watched it on the same day I watched “Bad Lieutenant.” They could have been a double feature together.

“Henry” had a rocky start. No distribution company was willing to distribute it. It was too violent and horrific for the 1986 crowd. By 1989 it finally found a distributor and has since gone on to receive substantial edits and censorship for its various home video releases.

Now having seen it, I understand why it has such a notorious reputation, but in the end, I didn’t feel all that affected by it. Maybe I’m desensitized more than I realize (probably) or maybe the movie simply isn’t that great.

Directed by John McNaughton, “Henry” unflinchingly tells the tale of Henry (Michael Rooker), a man who kills for no other reason that to kill. Henry’s roommate Ottis soon joins him on his violent escapades. All the while, Ottis’ sister Becky finds some attraction to Henry but remains oblivious to his bloody hobbies.

There is one particularly infamous scene in which Henry and Ottis slaughter an entire family and videotape the massacre. This scene is emblematic of the whole film. It is an unblinking portrayal of realistic, unequivocal violence. These types of murders really exist. You can read about them in the news every day.

My problem with this film does not lay with the violence or tone of the film. It derives from the character study itself. Henry is unchanging and therefore uninteresting. When we meet him he is a violent killer and when we leave him he is a violent killer. He is never pursued by the police or forced to confront himself. There is a brief scene where he stares into a bathroom mirror, perhaps trying to look into his soul, but that’s about all the introspection we get out of him.

This movie reminds me of a poor man’s “No Country for Old Men.” Its statement is that evil exists in everyday life in a very real way, but the film never allows any elbow room for the moral parameters that allow us to engage and feel moved by a character. I never felt much about Henry at all.


Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.”


Rationalization:

I really, really wanted to care for this one like I’ve cared for films before, but it just didn’t move me like I wanted it to. In the grand scheme of things, “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” almost does the trick but falls short. I don’t care how artsy the film, in order to have an effective story, someone in the story needs to change – even if it’s just the dog. .
Without change you have a static image of a human being and that’s not a story, th