Retro Review - HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1986)

MICHAEL ROOKER stars as a vicious serial killer in HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER. — **MICHAEL ROOKER** stars as a vicious serial killer in **HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER**.

Pretty much everyone knows the proverb. A scorpion wants to cross a river, but it can’t swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they both would drown. The frog considers this sensible argument and agrees to take the scorpion across. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog, dooming them both as they begin to drown. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung him knowing they both would die if he did, to which the scorpion replies, “it’s in my nature.”

In the gritty and merciless JOHN MCNAUGHTON film, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, we are introduced to one such scorpion, in the form of a cold-blooded and brutal killer, who’s homicidal nature sustains him, as he hunt the streets of Chicago looking for easy targets.

TOM TOWLES, TRACY ARNOLD, and MICHAEL ROOKER in a scene from HENRY. — **TOM TOWLES, TRACY ARNOLD,** and **MICHAEL ROOKER** in a scene from **HENRY**.

PLOT:

Henry (MICHAEL ROOKER) is released from prison following his mother's murder. He supplements his job as an exterminator with a series of assorted and violent murders. Fellow ex-jailbird and roommate Otis (TOM TOWLES) becomes a willing accomplice in Henry's bloody killings. But as the depravity escalates and Henry seems to form a bond with Otis' sister, Becky (TRACY ARNOLD), things start to get out of hand.

Several of the opening kills in HENRY were based on the real-life murders committed by serial killer, HENRY LEE LUCAS, including this shot. — Several of the opening kills in **HENRY** were based on the real-life murders committed by serial killer, **HENRY LEE LUCAS**, including this shot.

BACKGROUND:

This film marked director JOHN MCNAUGHTON’S debut, who shot the film in 1985 over the course of four weeks, with a cast of talented unknowns mostly drawn from Chicago’s Organic Theater Company, and on a paltry budget of $120,000.

McNaughton was inspired to make the film after watching a segment about serial killer HENRY LEE LUCAS on an episode of the TV show, 20/20. Lucas was an American drifter serial killer whose crimes spanned from 1960 to 1983. In 1977, he befriended a man named OTTIS TOOLE in Jacksonville, Florida where he became close to Toole’s adolescent niece, who was nicknamed “Becky.” Toole later claimed to have accompanied Lucas in 1,008 murders, but was convicted of only six counts of murder. Lucas was convicted of murdering 11 people (although The Lucas Task Force officially cleared 213 previously unsolved murders as a result of his confessions, many of his murder confessions were later found to have been fictitious). He was sentenced to death for the murder of Debra Jackson, though his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1998. He died of heart failure in prison in 2001. McNaughton later said that he was struck by Lucas’s low-key charm, a trait he felt explained how a killer could get close to his victims.

MICHAEL ROOKER, TOM TOWLES, and TRACY ARNOLD in HENRY. — **MICHAEL ROOKER**, **TOM TOWLES**, and **TRACY ARNOLD** in **HENRY**.

KILLS:

Right away, McNaughton lets us know what kind of film we are in store for. We follow Henry along as he drives around Chicago, seeing only the aftermath of his “errands” of the day: a dead older couple who owned a liquor store shown with gunshot wounds, and a half-nude prostitute in a bathroom with what looks like a broken glass bottle half coming out of her mouth (a nasty little moment). Though we don’t see how these kills happened, we hear the auditory flashbacks of the attacks and can easily deduce that it's Henry who perpetrated them. McNaughton could have easily shown the murders as they were occurring, but wisely chooses not to, as we would have no sense of empathy (not that there’s much to be had in this film) or emotional connection with Henry, and we as the audience need that later on in order for the end of the film to pack the punch it’s supposed to.

Throughout the film we see Henry stalk his prey as if planning his next meal, and as a woman, it’s this kind of cunning and predative behavior that makes these kind of scenes particularly difficult to watch, as every fiber of my being was screaming, “don’t open the door, don’t get in the car.”

Once Henry starts to get his beer-swilling, drug-dealing roommate Otis involved however, is when the true nastiness and viciousness really bumps up to eleven. One evening, when the two men pick up a few prostitutes, their carnal activities take a turn for the worst when Henry breaks the neck of the woman he was with and then immediately breaks the other prostitute’s neck when she realizes what he did to her friend. At first, Otis seems shocked and disturbed by what Henry did, but Henry is able to easily manipulate him, expounding Otis on his philosophy of killing, and convincing him of the proportional nature of murder (“it’s either you or them, one way or another”).

Though there are plenty of brutal kills in this film, the most categorically disturbing and vile moment again is seen only after it has already taken place. We see Otis and Henry sitting on the couch of their living room, calmly watching back the recording they took of a family home invasion. In the video, they are laughing and encouraging each other, seemingly having a grand old time as Henry films Otis molesting the wife, while Henry kicks at the husband, who is tied up on the floor. I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say that it is a gruesome, repugnant, harrowing scene that is extremely difficult to watch. What makes the scene even more stomach-churning however, is that when it ends, Otis starts to rewind it. When Henry asks what he’s doing, he says simply, “I want to see it again,” proceeding to watch it over in slow motion so he can take in every minute detail of what they did. It is awful, bleak and unremorseful stuff.

TOM TOWLES and MICHAEL ROOKER in a scene from HENRY. — **TOM TOWLES** and **MICHAEL ROOKER** in a scene from **HENRY**.

VISUALS/SFX:

The overall look and feel of the film matches the bleakness of McNaughton’s overall tone. The interiors and exteriors are grimy, dirty, and dull. The apartment that Henry, Otis, and Becky share has stained wallpaper that is peeling, beat-up furniture, and dim, overhead lighting. There is not a ray of sunshine to be found, and even when there are outside shots, the light has a gray, washed-out tone to it.

McNaughton’s camera is unflinching when trained on the aftermath of Henry’s victims, slowly panning around and lingering, and while some may call it exploitative, what McNaughton is actually trying to accomplish is to force the audience to not shy away from what Henry is capable of. That though he may be charming and sweet in some contexts, he is at his core, a violent, brutal, and sadistic man, who would strangle a woman and burn her head and torso with cigarette butts.

Henry and Otis discuss the logistics of serial killing in a scene from HENRY.

PERFORMANCES:

The strength of HENRY really lies in the performances of it’s cast. As Becky, TRACY ARNOLD is a vulnerable, naïve, and damaged woman, who places too much weight on Henry’s kind, but innocuous gestures towards her. She is a woman with a history of bad choices when it comes to men, and Henry is no different, seeing him as her savior and immediately throwing herself emotionally and physically at him. Becky would undoubtedly be one of those ladies who showed up to RICHARD RAMIREZ’s trial, claiming they loved him and that he was misunderstood (by the way, fuck those women).

At first, it’s easy to dismiss Otis, played by TOM TOWLES, as just an ignorant, sexist, pervy, and obnoxious redneck. We don’t initially see him the way we see Henry, who we know is a violent killer. But when Henry brings Otis around to his way of thinking (it can be argued that Otis’ absorption of that information is more chaotic and base once unleashed, whereas Henry’s modus operandi is more calculated and impersonal), it becomes a literal powder keg of sadistic behavior.

In one unsettling scene, Henry explains to Otis why every murder should have a different technique so the police can’t connect them to just one perpetrator: “If you shoot somebody in the head with a .45 every time you kill someone it becomes like your fingerprint, see? But if you strangle one and stab another, one you cut up, and one you don’t, then the police don’t know what to do.” As he calmly explains this, we see grainy camcorder footage Otis is taking out at a park of two homeless men who savagely beat and rob a man in broad daylight. The juxtaposition of Otis and Henry talking about how to avoid getting caught murdering people as we watch a man get beaten in a park add to the overall bleakness of this film. Even a park in broad daylight is brutal and unpleasant in HENRY.

MICHAEL ROOKER gives a fantastic performance as Henry, who is by turns both terrifying and strangely charming. Henry is a severely disturbed man, haunted by the abuse he suffered as a child, so much so, that any time Betty gives him any physical affection, he is visibly uncomfortable, a feral dog who’s been kicked so many times, any displays of love and tenderness make him want to run from the room because he doesn’t understand it and/or doesn’t want it.

Rooker remained in character for the duration of the film, even off-set. He didn't associate or socialize with any of the cast or crew during the month-long shoot. According to costume designer PATRICIA HART, she and Rooker would travel to the set together each day, and she never knew from one minute to the next if she was talking to Michael or to Henry, as sometimes he would speak about his childhood and background, not as himself, but as Henry.

That kind of method acting pays off as Rooker portrays Henry by turns both manipulative and violent, yet vulnerable and damaged. All of these people are deeply broken and dangerous in some way to themselves and each other, a combustible combination of trauma and sociopathic behavior, but it’s Rooker that does the real heavy lifting in this. Casting agents, please give him more leading roles, because he is fantastic in everything he takes on.

A serial killer gets more than he bargained for in HENRY. — A serial killer gets more than he bargained for in **HENRY**.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:

HENRY makes you squirm uneasily in your seat, unflinching in its portrayal of apathy and bleakness. The film doesn’t cop out by giving us the Hollywood, happily-ever-after ending of Henry and Becky going off into the sunset together. There is no happy ending here, no ray of hope to be found.

The film doesn’t even give us an investigator or detective to follow like so many other serial killer films - no one who is out to find the person(s) responsible for these crimes, or bring justice to these victims, and perhaps that’s also what makes the film so disturbing and uncompromising in the brutality displayed. There’s no soft cushion for us to lay our moral psyches on. We only follow Henry and Otis, and only have access to their minds and methods, and that is a very dark and frightening place.

At the Chicago International Film Festival in 1986, the film drew interest from distributors, but they were quickly scared off after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) slapped HENRY with an X rating. So, the film sat on the shelf until 1989, when the Motion Picture Industry publicity director, CHUCK PARELLO, persuaded Chicago’s Music Box Theater to do a few midnight screenings. Those who didn’t walk out (and many did) were impressed. Documentarian ERROL MORRIS, who was responsible for the film, THE THIN BLUE LINE, invited HENRY to the 1989 Telluride Film Festival in Colorado. Reaction was divided, but not indifferent. Many said the film was too violent and disgusting to sit through, others said it was justified because of its uncompromising candor in a world where so many horror films cheapen death by minimizing it. Among the champions of the indie film were film critics GENE SISKEL and ROGER EBERT, the latter of which, when reviewing the film said, “there is no doubt in my mind that HENRY is a powerful and important film, brilliantly directed and acted.”

However, the MPAA refused to modify the X rating to a more palatable R when the film was resubmitted uncut. HENRY producer WALEED ALI said the MPAA didn’t even suggest changes. “They told us they wouldn’t know where to cut,” he said. “The film is too disturbing.”

When the film was finally released in wide release in 1990, the tagline on the posters stated, “He’s not Freddy, he’s not Jason...he’s real.” And perhaps, that’s what continues to make HENRY such a polarizing film, even 35 years later. We can’t justify his actions away because he is some kind of fictional boogeyman. These kinds of acts happened, and Henry and Otis were real flesh-and-blood people. HENRY is disturbing. Watching it, you can’t help but recoil and blanch at the stark, raw savagery of some of the scenes. And that’s the point. Far from glorifying Henry’s bloodlust, McNaughton grabs our faces and doesn’t let us turn away from the inhumanity of it. It depicts the darkest, worst recesses of humanity and human nature, and like the scorpion, we can’t afford to turn our backs on it, because the minute we do, it will sting us, taking us down into the dark water along with it.

Apathy and brutality rules in HENRY. — Apathy and brutality rules in **HENRY**.

THE GORY DETAILS:

Although the MPAA initially gave the film an X rating, this movie, along with PETER GREENAWAY’s THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER (1989), and PEDRO ALMODOVAR’s TIE ME UP! TIE ME DOWN! (1989), were the main reasons for the creation of the NC-17 rating (an adults-only film, which is non-pornographic).

MICHAEL ROOKER said he was working as a janitor when he auditioned for the part of Henry, and went to the audition in his janitor uniform. He got the part, and continued to wear his uniform throughout the film shoot. He only had one jacket, though, so he took it off before he "killed" anyone, so he wouldn't get blood on it.

The film initially earned six hundred thousand dollars on its (extremely limited) theatrical run, but has since gone on to earn millions on VHS and DVD, as well as theatrical re-releases.

The four murder scenes seen in the first few minutes of the film, were all based on real-life murders, which HENRY LEE LUCAS claimed to have committed, especially the first shot, where the body of the nude woman is posed in exactly the same position as a victim in a case involving Lucas.

Even members of the filmmaking team themselves have been disturbed by the film. Composer ROBERT MCNAUGHTON couldn't watch the film all the way through upon first seeing it, and TOM TOWLES has only ever seen the film once, at the Splatterfest Film Festival in 1990.