Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
Dir John McNaughton / 1986 / USA
This title was always going to have problems with the local censors, so it was no surprise that Dendy had an 83min (f) print banned in 1992. An appeal was made to the Film Board of Review who gave the following response. Film and Literature Board of Review- Report on Activities 1991-92
Introduction
Evan Williams-Chairman
In matters of film classification, we
found ourselves more frequently in agreement than in previous years with the
decisions of the Film Censorship Board. In no case were we prepared to uphold an
appeal against an 'R' classification accorded on the grounds of violence. It is
possible that this reflected greater concern on the part of Board members with
the extremes of violence depicted in many contemporary films and a keener
awareness of community reactions to it. On the other hand, it seemed that in
most of the violent films submitted to us the issues were clear-cut, and it was
rare for the members to be divided. With one exception, none of the violent
films we considered could claim any special artistic merit or cinematic
distinction, as was the case last year with The Silence of the Lambs.
The exception was Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer, which had been refused registration by the Film Censorship Board. This low-budget American production, made in 1986, had become a cause celebre, with censorship authorities around the world divided in their attitudes to it. It had been widely shown at international festivals, and it was argued strongly by the Australian distributors that it should be shown uncut in this country. A majority of the Board upheld the decision to refuse to register the film in its uncut form; a minority felt that it should receive an 'R' classification. A reconstructed version was subsequently classified 'R' by the Film Censorship Board and screened in Australia.
In all matters before us, we were obliged to weigh a range of conflicting arguments and seek a reasonable course between the interests of different parties with frequently irreconcilable philosophical positions. Our starting point has been the view adopted by the Chief Censor and enunciated in the classification guidelines that adults in a free society should be at liberty, subject to certain agreed constraints, to see, hear and read what they please. Whether our decisions were reasonable may be judged from the reports in the following pages; in all cases they were taken after great deliberation and with a conscientious regard record my indebtedness to my fellow members of the Board, and to the staff of the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
***
Film and Literature Board of Review- Report on Activities 1991-92
Title: Henry
Portrait of a Serial Killer
Applicant: Dendy Films
Decision Reviewed: Refuse to register by the Film Censorship Board
Decision: "The subject of this appeal was
a low-budget independent American film made in 1986, which has
been screened, sometimes with modifications, in various
countries and at various festivals, attracting widespread
critical and public notoriety. Some American and English
critics, not necessarily the most esteemed, have called it a
masterpiece; all have agreed that it is a film of extraordinary
power and cinematic interest. As the title suggests, it's a study
of a serial killer, a young man called Henry, who murders people
for pleasure. Henry shares a flat with another man, Otis and
Otis's sister Becky, and persuades Otis to join him on his
killing sprees. Altogether there are sixteen murders, but only a
minority are depicted explicitly and directly. Some of the
victims are shown post mortem (we see only their bodies); in
other cases the murders are shot from a distance or in a shadow;
in the most notorious scene they are depicted on video replay
watched by the killers themselves. The final murder, that of
Becky, is no more than implied.
The film contains a graphic depiction of the rape of Becky by her brother. Even in the more extreme and explicit episodes, however the tone is detached and matter of fact. the violence itself occupies something less than ten minutes of screen time in a film of only 83 minutes duration. Most of the film consists of low-key conversations between the three characters. It is nevertheless, in its entirety, deeply shocking and unsettling for many reasons, and the Film Censorship Board decided by majority that it should be refused registration pursuant to sub-regulation 13(1)(a) of the Customs (Cinematograph) Regulations.
The appellants, Dendy Films, were represented by Ms Lynn McCarthy and Mr Graeme Tubbenhauer. They presented a closely argued and detailed submission in favour of an 'R' classification. They contended that the film in no way glamorised its violent events or its central character, and indeed provoked suitable feelings of horror and revulsion. It was pointed out that the film had been wildly acclaimed and honoured by overseas critics and audiences. Although the subject matter was disturbing, there was no attempt to sensationalise it or to render it alluring or even entertaining in any conventional way: the treatment was extremely clinical. A letter was tendered from the critic David Stratton, a former director if the Sydney Film Festival, stating his opinion that Henry was more honest and less sensational than 'The Silence of the Lambs': 'I can't imagine it being in the least stimulating. It's a study of a sick man who seems to be oblivious of normal society or of the forces of law and order'
The appeal presented the Board of Review with unusual difficulties. All of us found Henry deeply disturbing. All of us recognised that it is a film of unusual interest, and by no means a routine thriller designed to shock audiences and exploit its themes of aberrant behaviour and abnormal criminal psychology.
All of us had misgivings about refusing registration and in effect preventing Australian audiences from seeing the film in the form which it was made; equally we had difficulty with the idea of specifying cuts as a condition of approval. We found ourselves divided between those favouring confirmation of the original refusal and those leaning towards registering the film with an 'R' for cinema release. In the event a majority was persuaded that certain scenes-especially the videotaped murder of the family and the rape of Becky-went well beyond the bounds of acceptability, and that the Film Censorship Board's decision should be upheld.
The Chairman for the minority, argued that an 'R' classification was appropriate, and that it was precisely material of this kind-admittedly strong but serious films with a claim to artistic merit - that the 'R' classification was intended. The Chairman maintained that the degree of violence -much of it depicted obliquely -could be accommodated within the 'R' classification, and that the strong reactions to the film owed more to the unemotional behaviour of the protagonists than to the nature of the violence actually shown.
Although this view was not accepted
by the majority, all members agreed that it would be unfortunate
if the film were banned for Australian audiences in its
entirety. Notwithstanding their reluctance to specify cuts, they
agreed that the Chairman should write to the appellants
suggesting that, in view of the film's distinctive quality and
artistic merit the appellants might wish to apply to the Chief
Censor for permission to reconstruct the film under Regulation
22 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. It was the
Board's understanding that a modified version had been approved
for cinema exhibition in Britain, and that a similar version
might be acceptable in Australia. A letter to Ms Lynn McCarthy,
suggesting this course was forwarded on 24 January 1992 and the
appeal against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to
refuse to register Henry-Portrait of a Serial Killer in the form
submitted was accordingly dismissed.
20 January 1992"
***
Office of Film and Literature
Classification- Report on Activities 1991-92
Complaints
Two hundred and forty-one written and fifty-five oral complaints were
received during the year.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (8 Letters)
***
With the appeal dismissed, around 90 seconds of footage was removed and an R rating granted. Several months later Columbia Tristar Home Video were awarded an R for a 77min version (v).
The exact runtime is 77m 48s (PAL) and is missing the following.
4m 53s-Around 15s has been removed of the close up of the dead woman on the toilet. This removes the sound of the bottle smashing, and Henry shouting "Die Bitch Die".
15m 20s-Around 25s removed of the close up of the dead woman on the couch. This eliminates the sound of her struggling.
51m 48s-Around 15s removed of Otis sitting down with the mother on him. Henry tells him to remove the woman's bra and skirt.
The Australian version then cuts to the struggling father on the floor who is kicked by Henry.
52m-Around 15s of the woman struggling and pleading has been removed.
The Australian version then shows the son arriving home and then being killed by Henry, whilst Otis kills the mother.
52m 42s-Around 15s removed of Otis kissing the dead woman, with the sound of Henry killing the father off camera.
The Australian version then shows Otis waving the dead woman's hand to the camera.
52m 57s-Around 5sec removed of Otis sucking the dead woman's breast
***
Two customs confiscations to report for the uncut version of this title. Both from the early 90's. One was a VHS which was forwarded to the OFLC in 1992 and confirmed as RC, and the other was a laserdisc.
***
It was 13 years before the film came back before the Classification Board. This time it had a somewhat easier ride. In June 2005 the full uncut version was rated R18+ (High Level Violence). The DVD was released on Paramount's Rialto Entertainment label in October 2005 with a running time of 82m 29s (NTSC).
|
|
|
Rialto Entertainment - Paramount (Australia) |
|
