← Back to Reviews
in
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, 1986
Arriving in Chicago with a slew of bodies in his wake, Henry (Michael Rooker) moves in with his friend Otis (Tom Towles) and Otis's sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold). It takes very little time for Henry to turn Otis into his partner in crime. Meanwhile, Becky's relationship with both men becomes more complicated.
I had avoided this movie for a long time, both because of the reputation it has and because of the grunge, fatalistic vibe it gives off. And while the film is grungy and unpleasant, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. (Okay, "liked" doesn't feel quite right with this kind of movie, but you know what I mean).
What can be off-putting about films like this one is that they can come across as an excuse to put graphic, "edgy" content on screen. It is very easy for such films to slip into a mode that feels exploitative. This film definitely contains some hard to watch content, but there is never a sense of doing it in a cheap way. In fact, with the exception of the opening sequence which shows several women who have been killed by Henry, the movie almost seems to go out of its way to avoid giving the impression of cheap thrills. One of the first victims is an average-joe type. Another murder takes place in a way that we hear what is happening but do not see it. I ask you: how many films about a serial killer would portray
.
The most disturbing sequence of the film involves Henry and Otis killing a family (and recording it on camera for posterity). This is the scene that, to me, showed the degree of thoughtfulness behind the movie. As we come into the scene, Otis
Perhaps the most quality choice made by the filmmakers is in the dynamic and contrast between Henry and Becky. In one of the very first scenes between the two, a long camera shot holds on Becky as she tells Henry about the horrific sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her father for years. Henry doesn't say much in response, but later when Otis puts his hands on Becky inappropriately, Henry reacts swiftly to put a stop to it. Does Becky's story resonate with something that once happened to Henry? Does Henry for some reason become attached to Becky? We never find out. But Becky, with her string of abusive relationships and her endurance of even Otis's inappropriate intentions, is the beating heart of the film. Henry--the only character who doesn't seem to want to put his hands on her--intrigues her. We can see the danger she is in, but Becky cannot.
Giving Becky such depth is a very wise choice, because Henry himself remains an enigma. What motivates him? We never really learn much about this. The film never points to anything specific--aside from a poor relationship with his mother--and gives no real hint as to what drives his attacks. While there is a sexual component to many of the killings, the violence seems to drive him more than any attraction. And as Otis gets drawn into his crimes, the contrast between the men becomes interesting. Rooker is perfect in the role of Henry. Attractive and "normal" enough that you believe someone might let their guard down around him, and yet with an unnatural stillness. There is something empty in Henry, and that is what makes him so terrifying. You sort of get that sense that even as he enjoys killing, some large part of him just. . . . doesn't care.
The film has a low-budget look, but not an unintentional one. The people and locations all look and feel real. The dialogue feels natural. And the reality of the film is what makes it so hard to watch and frightening.
This probably isn't a movie that I would broadly recommend. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that the exploitative elements I had expected (based on certain things I knew happened in the film) were mostly absent. There is a lot more empathy and depth to the movie than I would have anticipated. I think that the very final shot says a lot.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, 1986
Arriving in Chicago with a slew of bodies in his wake, Henry (Michael Rooker) moves in with his friend Otis (Tom Towles) and Otis's sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold). It takes very little time for Henry to turn Otis into his partner in crime. Meanwhile, Becky's relationship with both men becomes more complicated.
I had avoided this movie for a long time, both because of the reputation it has and because of the grunge, fatalistic vibe it gives off. And while the film is grungy and unpleasant, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. (Okay, "liked" doesn't feel quite right with this kind of movie, but you know what I mean).
What can be off-putting about films like this one is that they can come across as an excuse to put graphic, "edgy" content on screen. It is very easy for such films to slip into a mode that feels exploitative. This film definitely contains some hard to watch content, but there is never a sense of doing it in a cheap way. In fact, with the exception of the opening sequence which shows several women who have been killed by Henry, the movie almost seems to go out of its way to avoid giving the impression of cheap thrills. One of the first victims is an average-joe type. Another murder takes place in a way that we hear what is happening but do not see it. I ask you: how many films about a serial killer would portray
WARNING: spoilers below
a man killing a prostitute during sex and not include even a second of nudity in that scene?
The most disturbing sequence of the film involves Henry and Otis killing a family (and recording it on camera for posterity). This is the scene that, to me, showed the degree of thoughtfulness behind the movie. As we come into the scene, Otis
WARNING: spoilers below
is beginning to sexually assault the wife while Henry goes after the husband. The main focus of the scene seems to be building to the sexual assault, but then the couple's child enters the house. And the blocking is such that Henry's murder of the child is placed right in front of Otis and the wife. It feels like a direct snub of the trope of serial killer movies where the woman's clothing is ripped off as the focal point of the scene. It is horrible to watch, but in the right way, if that makes sense. Absolutely no hint of "Oh isn't this awful, but also let me zoom in on the bare chest of this model-like 20-something actress".
Perhaps the most quality choice made by the filmmakers is in the dynamic and contrast between Henry and Becky. In one of the very first scenes between the two, a long camera shot holds on Becky as she tells Henry about the horrific sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her father for years. Henry doesn't say much in response, but later when Otis puts his hands on Becky inappropriately, Henry reacts swiftly to put a stop to it. Does Becky's story resonate with something that once happened to Henry? Does Henry for some reason become attached to Becky? We never find out. But Becky, with her string of abusive relationships and her endurance of even Otis's inappropriate intentions, is the beating heart of the film. Henry--the only character who doesn't seem to want to put his hands on her--intrigues her. We can see the danger she is in, but Becky cannot.
Giving Becky such depth is a very wise choice, because Henry himself remains an enigma. What motivates him? We never really learn much about this. The film never points to anything specific--aside from a poor relationship with his mother--and gives no real hint as to what drives his attacks. While there is a sexual component to many of the killings, the violence seems to drive him more than any attraction. And as Otis gets drawn into his crimes, the contrast between the men becomes interesting. Rooker is perfect in the role of Henry. Attractive and "normal" enough that you believe someone might let their guard down around him, and yet with an unnatural stillness. There is something empty in Henry, and that is what makes him so terrifying. You sort of get that sense that even as he enjoys killing, some large part of him just. . . . doesn't care.
The film has a low-budget look, but not an unintentional one. The people and locations all look and feel real. The dialogue feels natural. And the reality of the film is what makes it so hard to watch and frightening.
This probably isn't a movie that I would broadly recommend. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that the exploitative elements I had expected (based on certain things I knew happened in the film) were mostly absent. There is a lot more empathy and depth to the movie than I would have anticipated. I think that the very final shot says a lot.