Controversial US horror drama in which a newly-released prisoner embarks on a crime spree.
Classification Issues
- Violence
- Killers attack and murder a family, in their own home. There are other scenes of sadistic murder and violence, often with resulting bloody injury detail.
- Sexual violence and sexual threat
- There are scenes in which women are beaten, raped and murdered.
- Additional issues
- There is strong threat and nudity. There is use of strong language ('f**k', 'motherf**ker'). There are moderate drug references.
Pre-classification history
Although it was made in 1986, John McNaughton's Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was shelved by its own US distributor until 1989. When the film finally emerged, it was screened without a certificate at the National Film Theatre and the Scala Cinema in London, both of whom had special permission from their respective local authorities (Southwark and Camden) to exhibit unclassified films. The film had been seen unofficially at those two venues by a number of BBFC staff, including the Board's Director, James Ferman, and it was already apparent to the film's UK distributor that the film would present difficulties for the BBFC to classify uncut.
Perhaps as a result of that, when the film was formally submitted for classification in 1991, the distributor had already removed one shot from the film: namely a shot of a topless and blood-streaked female corpse, sitting on a toilet with a broken bottle embedded in her face.
Cinema classification
The film was first viewed by the BBFC, in this marginally pre-cut version, on 7 January 1991.
The three examiners who viewed the film identified one scene in particular as raising concerns regarding potential harm.This was the scene in which Henry and his friend Otis watch a video recording of themselves killing a family, including Otis sexually assaulting the mother, both before and after her death.
Given the challenges involved in cutting the scene effectively, as well as the violent and bleak nature of the film as a whole, a further screening took place on 25 January. Four examiners attended this second screening, with two arguing for cuts and two making a case for 18 without cuts. However, James Ferman concluded that cuts were necessary, in particular to reduce the sexualisation of the female victim, by removing shots showing the killer's hand moving to her pubic area and by reducing to a minimum the exposure and mauling of her breasts, both before and after she is killed.
On 12 February, an editor working for the film's distributor visited the BBFC's premises and worked with James Ferman to produce a cut version of the scene. The cut scene was then projected for examiners in the BBFC's cinema, with all those present feeling that the cuts made were insufficient to make the scene suitable for classification. As a result, two further small cuts were made and the cut version of the scene was sent back to the distributor. The whole film was viewed again, this time in the cut version, on 21 February, with examiners concluding that no further cuts should be required.
The next screening took place on 27 February, when the BBFC's President and Vice Presidents were invited to view the cut version of the film. James Ferman made the following remarks on file about that screening: "General agreement that film was disturbing but not exploitative in this cut form. No firm view that further cuts were needed, but a request that the Board seek expert advice from psychiatrists/psychologists familiar with the mindset of serial killers in order to ensure that the film was not likely to influence the vulnerable in dangerous directions".
In accordance with this request, the cut version of the film was screened once again on 19 March, with one psychiatrist and two psychologists in attendance. The experts agreed that the film was disturbing but also surprisingly accurate and therefore interesting. The conclusion was that the cut version of the film could be passed for cinema release, but that any subsequent video release, where scenes could be played and replayed out of context, was more likely to be a problem.
The film was classified 18 for cinema release on 24 April 1991. In total, the BBFC had cut 24 seconds of material and the distributor had pre-cut 38 seconds before submission. However, the BBFC made it known that a video certificate was unlikely to be forthcoming given concerns, under the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, about its suitability for viewing in the home.
Video classification
Given James Ferman's publicly stated reluctance to classify the film at all for video release, which he had also conveyed informally to the film's distributor, it was some time before the film arrived at the BBFC for classification on video.
Nonetheless, by May 1992, the distributor was pressing for a video classification and wrote to Ferman stating that the film had now been released on video in all countries in the EEC, as well as in Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, without any apparent ill effects or negative reaction.
The distributor stressed that the film would be marketed as a 'quality movie', rather than as exploitation, and that they would be prepared to implement further cuts in order to obtain a video certificate. Accordingly, the film was officially submitted for video release in June 1992, in the cut UK cinema version, and was viewed by BBFC examiners during June and July. A mixture of views were expressed, with some examiners arguing the cut cinema version should be passed on video without further cuts, whilst other examiners argued further cuts should be made, particularly in the 'family murder' scene that had already been reduced for cinema release.
During the summer months, the film was seen by the BBFC's Presidents and by other examiners, with a majority view emerging that the video might have a negative effect on "vulnerable or susceptible adults who may seek it out for morbid or prurient reasons". Ferman in particular was concerned by the opinions from the forensic consultants who had seen the film in 1991 and who had urged caution about a video release.
What followed became one of the most controversial decisions of James Ferman’s tenure at the BBFC. Ferman recognised that the scene required further modification for video release but was also conscious that only a limited amount of footage could be removed without undermining a key sequence. Given concerns that the scene might have a harmful impact on vulnerable viewers, he determined that an alternative approach would be to disrupt its continuity by inserting a shot of Henry and Otis watching the video into the middle of the sequence. Although this certainly helped to interrupt the flow for any vulnerable viewers who might be viewing the scene out of context, it also altered the meaning of the scene in a crucial way.
In the original version, although the viewer is aware they are watching a video tape, they do not become aware they are watching Henry and Otis watching a video tape, as opposed to witnessing 'live' footage of their murders, until the end of the scene. By interfering with the structure of the scene in question, Ferman had also interfered with the meaning of the sequence and the questions it deliberately raised for the audience, regarding voyeurism and their own complicity. The change additionally disrupted the sequence’s carefully controlled visual style, which relies on a single, static video image.
Despite these implications, the distributor was increasingly keen to secure a version suitable for video release and agreed to Ferman’s proposed amendments.
In addition to the 'interruption' of the family murder scene, Ferman also removed some extra seconds from that scene (notably sight of the woman's legs struggling), as well as making an additional cut to a sadistic stabbing during another scene in which a TV warehouse man is killed by Henry. In total, one minute 53 seconds of footage was cut from the version of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer that was finally classified for video release in January 1993, including the distributor's pre-cuts, the BBFC's cinema cuts, and the BBFC's additional cuts for video.
Public reaction and subsequent classifications
Ferman’s re-editing of the film attracted significant criticism from film critics and academics. Some commentators argued that the BBFC should not intervene in a way that altered the fundamental meaning of a filmmaker’s work. While such criticism may have overstated the uniqueness of the decision – given that the BBFC had previously made interventions that affected the flow or interpretation of scenes in order to classify a work – it was nevertheless unsurprising that the decision was later reversed. When the film was resubmitted for DVD release in 2000, Ferman’s successor, Robin Duval, overturned the earlier edits.
Examiners who saw the film in 2000 were divided between those who argued Henry should be passed at 18 uncut and those who felt cuts should be maintained, albeit far more limited cuts than those implemented in 1991-1992. In the end, it was agreed that the video cut to the stabbing of the TV warehouse man could be waived, that the number of cuts required to the family murder scene could be reduced, and that Ferman's re-editing of that scene should be undone. However, the Board's Director and Presidents decided to uphold a limited number of the other cuts.
Firstly, they decided the scene that had been pre-cut by the film's own distributor, for both cinema and video release, could only be partially reinstated. Whereas the entire scene had been removed on previous submissions to the BBFC, on this occasion it was decided that initial sight of the woman's dead body slumped on the toilet could remain, cutting away only as the camera began to slowly zoom into her bloody breasts and face. This was considered to be unacceptably eroticised and gratuitous. Secondly, they decided that the mauling of the woman's breast in the family murder scene was still unacceptably eroticised and comparable to material that had recently been cut from other video works. In accordance with prevailing BBFC policies, 48 seconds of cuts were made for the film's first DVD release, whilst one minute and three seconds of previous cuts were reinstated.
In 2003, the BBFC subsequently considered a proposed cinema re-release of the film. Given that cuts had been required for the DVD release only two years earlier, it initially appeared unlikely that the Board would reach a substantially different conclusion, particularly as the specific criteria of its sexual violence policy had not changed. However, the broader classification context had evolved. In the intervening period, the BBFC had passed a small number of films containing more explicit and disturbing depictions of sexual violence, including Baise-moi, Irréversible, and the belated DVD release of Straw Dogs, which informed its reassessment.
Given what had been permitted in those films, as well as the evidence the BBFC had gleaned from a recent survey of public attitudes into sexual violence, it seemed increasingly inconsistent to require cuts to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. The predominant effect of the scenes in question seemed to be to horrify rather than to arouse, any erotic elements were minimal and almost incidental, and the scenes served an important narrative and thematic significance within what was a carefully constructed and acclaimed feature. Examiners also noted that the cuts made in 2001 seemed relatively arbitrary in that it could be argued that some of the material the Board had reinstated was stronger than the material that had been cut. Therefore, it was concluded that Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer could finally be passed 18 uncut for cinema release on 20 February 2003.
The film was resubmitted for DVD release shortly afterwards, and the DVD version was also passed 18 uncut.
