Occasionally, as a film critic, the task of giving an objective rating out of ten can be tricky. If you rate something five or below, it suggests you did not like it. Rate it six or above, and this suggests you did enjoy it, regardless of any misgivings or mixed feelings you may have about the work in question. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, for me, is one such case, as I am still unsure of whether I actually liked it or not. Its portrayal of Henry Lee Lucas, the real-life serial killer whose crimes this is based on, made me feel very uncomfortable, to the point where I thought I could not finish watching it. My initial reaction was that it oozed cruelty, and while it was noble to portray the life of a serial killer realistically, with an unflinching eye to his crimes, the ends did not justify the means. It was roughly an hour later, only after the film was finished, that I knew that was exactly how I was meant to feel, and that my feelings of disgust and discomfort were not towards the film but towards the character's actions.
Made for only $100,000 in 1986, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer would not be seen until 1989, as the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) deemed it was too violent to receive an R-rating and that no amount of cuts could fix this. There was also the problem that the executive producers simply did not like the film and had no clue how to go about marketing it for general audiences. Luckily, it saw the light of day during a successful run of screenings at film festivals throughout 1989, which led to its theatrical release in 1990. It would go on to take six times its production cost at the box-office, and would garner favourable reviews from critics who praised the film's realism.
In terms of plotting, it is fairly simple. Henry (Michael Rooker) lives with a local drug dealer named Otis (Tom Towles), both of whom come across as typical white trash. One day, Otis' sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold), comes to live with them both, and immediately a tension grows between her and Henry. For her it is sexual, but she is not aware of his other murders (the murder of his mother she disregards having suffered sexual abuse from her father), and she finds him attractive. For Henry, the tension is less certain. Is he attracted to her? Does he want to kill her? The film does not answer until the last scene, and the ambiguity is what draws in Becky, and us as an audience. Otis on the other hand, is a different story. When he finds out about what Henry does, he wants in, and Henry takes him under his wing, teaching him how to be a successful serial killer.
In terms of performances, it is unfortunately hit and miss. Michael Rooker, for example, as Henry is stunning. It is no wonder that he became such a popular genre actor, because his presence and his cold-eyed stare are terrifying. He comes across a little like a young Anthony Perkins, and whenever he is on screen his charisma sucks you in so you want to find out more. Unfortunately Tom Towles, as Otis and Tracy Arnold, as Becky, are fairly amateurish. They are never awful, but they are just not interesting screen presences; making their scenes dull to watch.
However, its biggest strength comes from its realism, especially tackling its representation of serial killers. Unlike most exploitation films which were released during the 70s and 80s, this film refuses to glorify Henry in the hopes of shocking the audience; nor does it attempt to explain his actions. Instead it presents his killings as everyday, and normal for the life of Henry. This is very wise as, not only would this be how someone like Henry would see themselves, it also allows the audience a way in to his character to attempt to find out more. What also works is the fact that we never actually see Henry murder anyone until the last half of the movie, and when we finally do, it is all the more shocking because of how hard the viewer has worked to find any sort of remorse in Henry. Director John McNaughton has allowed us to burrow into Henry's mind, and that is where he traps us; keeping us there, squirming and wriggling in discomfort until the closing credits begin to play.
One such scene comes towards the last third of the movie, where Henry and Otis film themselves on a camcorder murdering a family of three. We watch through the viewfinder as Henry rests the camera down, and murders a young boy and his father. He then allows Otis to crack the neck of the mother as if it were a chicken's neck. We then pull back to reveal Otis and Henry playing the cassette of the murders we have just witnessed on their VCR. However awful we already felt, we now feel worse having known that we are watching this in the same way that Henry intended Otis to watch it.
For the sake of a disclaimer, it must be said that this movie is based more on the crimes Henry Lee Lucas claimed to have perpetrated, rather than the actual case. Like many serial killers, Henry Lee Lucas wanted media attention, so he began confessing to every unsolved murder brought before him. This was seen as a golden opportunity for the police, who saw a chance to clear out all their cold case files that they no longer had time to investigate. So in the film, Henry kills many people in the brief 88 minute running time, whereas in real life he was charged with eleven murders, but it could be as low as two, according to some experts on the case.
So, how in the end can I rate this? I certainly admire the film for not attempting to sugar coat a serial killer. However, I cannot really say I enjoyed watching it, and struggled to get all the way through it. The best I can do is to say I recommend it, and leave it with a rating which suggests I found it problematic, but still recommendable. My verdict is that for those with a strong tolerance for this kind of thing, you may get a lot out of it and enjoy it more than I did.
6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment