In 1991, after spending five years in censorship limbo, John McNaughton’s $111,000 movie Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was finally released. A powerful exploration of the mind of a serial killer, the movie caused controversy and comment wherever it was shown. However, it was before it was released that it caused most controversy, this time amongst movie fans and filmmakers.
The story of Henry is loosely based on the real-life exploits of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Henry’s hideous pastimes are documented as he works his way through the cities prime targets, with his friend and accomplice Otis. Michael Rooker, who really brings the role to frightening life, plays Henry and his cold gaze and emotionless actions form the backbone of the movie’s power.
Although Henry is the focus of the movie, the most despicable character comes in the form of Otis. Ever the willing accomplice, Otis’ crimes seem motivated by only his own debauchery, where as Henry is shown to be affected by his awful childhood. Further to this, it is Otis who seems to be capable of anything – he is a truly terrifying individual – with Henry possibly having some compassion somewhere inside.
When the time came to release the movie in the UK, the film was submitted to the BBFC. It was inevitable that the film would be cut, the question was by how much. For its theatrical release, the runtime was 81m 31s and for the video some two years later it was only 77m 26s. In uncut form, the runtime is 83 minutes.
This Electric Pictures release had a small cut to the scene where the TV salesperson is killed, plus the 38 seconds of cuts made for the theatrical release. These consisted mainly of the opening sequence and its jump cuts of Henry’s victims, in particular a blood stained female body. But the real controversy came with the camcorder sequence further into the movie.
The scene focussed on Henry and Otis watching a videotape of their rape and murder of a family. The BBFC’s director, James Ferman, looked at this scene with particular distaste and ordered that the scene be changed to lessen its impact. This was done by a series of cuts totaling 1m 11s and the insertion of the scene’s conclusion featuring Henry and Otis’ reaction, into the centre of the camcorder footage.
This solution was interesting for two reasons. The first was that although the scene was broken by a shot of Henry and Otis, it did little to lessen the impact, as we saw them both enjoying the home movie more than once. If anything, this changed an already disturbing scene into another disturbing scene but for different reasons. The second point is how this re-ordering was achieved. James Ferman essentially re-edited the scene, almost becoming a director.
Now, how you view this depends on how much you care about the movie you are watching. I for one wanted to see John McNaughton’s movie as opposed to James Ferman’s movie. These actions also present the question of where censorship ends and directing the movie begins. At the time the cuts were deemed important, but so important that the movie was noticeably changed?
As often happens with controversial movies, time heals all wounds and in 2003 the movie was released uncut in the UK by Optimum and in the USA, a 20th Anniversary 2 disc version uncut version exists, released by Dark Sky Films. For those wanting to know a little more about the censorship of the movie, the Optimum version has a short documentary showing the differences. Henry is worthwhile picking up in any form, as the movie is another great example with what can be done with a small budget and a good script.
