30 Day Horror Challenge Strikes Back Day 16: Character you would leave to die.

Welcome to Zombie Survival, Group Dynamics, and Not Being a Dumbass 101 folks. Ok, here’s how this is gonna work. I’m going to give you a hypothetical situation. Then, you tell me what you would do. By the way, this little exercise is based on a scenario faced by Rick Grimes in episodes two and three of The Walking Dead. Got it? Ok, here we go…

It’s the Zombie Apocalypse. You wake up in a hospital, barely survive, find that your wife and son are gone, and set off in search of them. You make your way to Atlanta. You get swarmed in the streets, but you meet a small group of survivors who save your life. As you get to know your new comrades, you hear gunshots on the roof. Your first introduction to Merle is seeing him shooting off rounds, wasting valuable ammo, and drawing the zombies to your location. Then the obnoxious coked up redneck starts throwing around racial slurs and attacks another member of the group. When you try to break it up, he jacks your jaw too. He then proceeds to put a gun in the face of the guy he’s assaulting and then wave it around at everyone else in the group demanding that he be put in charge. You manage to get the drop on him and handcuff him to a pipe. He threatens you, telling you that you’d “better pray” if he gets loose. After a harrowing escape from the building, you find out that the guy you gave the handcuff key to dropped it and that Merle is still there. You get back to camp, and miraculously you find your family. You meet Merle’s brother, who is also violent and extremely proficient with a crossbow. He asks about Merle. What do you do?

1. Tell him that his brother died fighting the zombies, make sure your story is straight with the others, and move on.
2. Tell him what happened. When he inevitably attacks you, kill him in self-defense. The group goes on without the two douchebags no one liked anyway.
3. Tell him what happened. Subdue him. Hope he doesn’t decide to avenge his brother some day when your back is turned.
4. Tell him what happened, and then plan a rescue mission back into the zombie infested city, risking four lives to save a man who is a danger to the group’s survival?

I’m sure most of you said A. That’s what I would do; therefore it’s the correct answer. I’d leave Merle up there to die. To tell you the truth I probably would have tossed him off of the roof into the zombie infested streets before I left. A few of you might have said B or C. A case can be made for those answers, so I’ll accept those too. I can’t imagine that any of you said D, but if you did, you have failed this class. Congratulations, you have poor decision making skills and are probably going to get everyone eaten. Don’t feel too bad though, that’s what Rick Grimes did.

There is absolutely no logical excuse for going back to save Merle. He was attacking and threatening at gunpoint members of your group. He was violently racist. When your survival depends on the unity of your group, that’s not going to fly. The group is better off without him, as his recklessness would most likely get you all killed. What the hell do you think is going to happen the second you get the handcuffs off? You knocked him out and took his spot as alpha male of the group, threw his stash off the building, and left him to die. He’s going to kill you, or at least try. His brother is going to side with him too. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

On top of that, it involves going back into Zombie infested Atlanta. I live 20 miles from Atlanta, it’s not even zombie infested yet, and I only go there when I absolutely have to. Movie screenings, concerts, you know; that kind of life or death stuff. To save a man who wants to kill me that no one but three others had to know was still there in the first place? Hell no! They would have gone with the “the zombies got him” story. Besides, you just found your wife and son. That’s one in a million. The very next day you want to go risk your life and the lives of three others to save a prick like Merle? She’s begging you not to go. Your son is begging you not to go. Your best friend is begging you not to go. The whole group is glad to be rid of Merle. What the hell are you thinking? Your little ideas about it being “dishonorable and inhuman” to leave him mean precisely diddly crap in this situation. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, especially if that few is Merle. Screw Merle. Besides, he’s played by Michael Rooker. Have you seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer? That dude’s scary. Let him rot on the rooftop.

30 Day Horror Challenge Day 15 - Your favorite horror film involving serial killers

Rated X for “disturbing moral tone.” That, my friends, is the epitome of effective film making in the horror genre. Anyone can pack a flick with too much gore for public consumption. Only one motion picture has ever managed to just be too disturbing to release. That was the magnificent Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. The filmmakers were even told by the MPAA that there were no cuts they could make to get an R rating. The gore isn’t extreme by our modern standards. There is some pretty gruesome stuff, but it wasn’t even excessively gory by 80’s standards. The whole tone of the flick was just too much. That’s because it is the most realistic look into the world of the serial killer ever made. I heard someone once say that the August Underground trilogy is the most realistic portrayal of a serial killer ever made. That person was an idiot. I’ll get into that some other time though, ‘cause we’re here to talk about the masterpiece that is Henry.

The film is based on the supposedly factual exploits of real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. I’m not going to get into the plot too much for the benefit of those who haven’t seen it. Henry is living with his old prison buddy Otis. Becky, Otis’s little sister, comes to live with them and develops a thing for Henry. Otis has a bit of a thing for his sister. Otis, by the way, is a magnificent scumbag. One night, Henry and Otis pick up some hookers. Henry kills them, and Otis decided that he wants to kill someone too. Henry sets about tutoring Otis in the fine art of serial killing. Eventually, situations arise between Henry, Otis, and Becky that will change some of their lives forever. I’ll leave it at that.

These days, when people talk about a “documentary like” approach to filmmaking, all too often it just means that they’re going to shake the camera a lot. This movie is truly documentary-like in a way Michael Moore would do well to emulate. It does not make any moral judgments at all; it only lets the events play out in front of the camera in a naturalistic way. It doesn’t elicit sympathy for the characters, nor does it condemn them. Even Henry has a certain code of ethics, skewed as it may be. He kills with no problem, but violently reproaches Otis for trying to feel up his sister. Did I mention that he’s a magnificent scumbag? Anyway, Henry doesn’t have a cute catch phrase. The deaths aren’t glossy or stylized, nor are they sanitized. There’s really not even any dramatic music or sweeping camera moves or any of the tricks Hollywood uses to add emotional gravitas to a scene. The carnage just is. Pure and simple. This is murder as real as it gets.

It is this moral ambiguity that the MPAA and many audiences at the festivals it screened at had such a big problem with. No moral judgment is passed on these characters or their actions, and there isn’t a happy ending. In fact, there really isn’t a resolution at all. Throughout the film, the murderers are not portrayed as monsters. They’re humans. The murders are shown for what they are, not dressed up in Grand Guignol style. It is the twin factors of the non-sensationalized characters and violence and the emotional and ethical neutrality that make the film so disturbing and powerful. This is not harmless, fun entertainment so much as it is a thought provoking look into the heart of darkness.

The other thing that makes this film so affecting is the acting of the three principal players. Michael Rooker as Henry is the best portrayal of a killer I’ve ever seen. He is at the same time charming, friendly, odd, and scary as hell. There are moments he just seems like another guy going about his daily life. In the next scene he’s brutalizing a family. His portrayal manages to be subtle and incredibly intense at the same time. You really do believe him. I’m sure Michael Rooker is a nice guy, but after seeing this movie I’d be a little skittish if I ever met him. He’s that convincing. Next to Henry, the other great cinematic serial killer roles, such as Hopkins as Lector, Perkins as Bates, Spacey as Doe, or Theron as Wuornos, seem over the top and campy. Even Benoit Poervorde’s outstanding performance in Man Bites Dog pales in comparison. The only other performance as a serial killer I have seen come close to this kind of complexity and skill was Peter Lorre in M. Tom Towles (NOTLD remake, House of 1000 Corpses) is great as Otis. He seems likable for a moment, and then turns into a slimy, sleazy, creepy, despicable character the likes of which are rarely equaled. In case I haven’t mentioned it, he’s a magnificent scumbag. Whereas Rooker plays the killing scenes with all the excitement of a junkie getting his next fix, Towles plays Otis’s discovery of murder with the slobbering glee of a 13 year old seeing his first pair of boobs. It’s truly terrifying. Rounding out the core cast is Tracy Arnold. She’s the only one the audience really feels any empathy for because as soon as she enters the picture we have a feeling it’s not going to end well for her. She’s fresh out of a bad marriage and is intrigued by Henry. Tracy plays her with a naivety, vulnerability, “trying too hard” bravado, and unwitting self destructiveness that will remind everyone of someone they know. I once read a review that described her as “an open wound of a woman.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Originally meant to be released in 1986, this movie languished on the shelf for 4 years before someone grew a pair and decided to release it unrated. Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer is a low budget wonder, and the most effective character study in the history of horror cinema. It has a heart wrenching ending that you can see coming a mile away, and it STILL gets you right in the gut. That’s skill right there. Michael Rooker got a lot of critical buzz from this movie, and rightfully so. Oh, and for the record, the 20^th anniversary 2 disc set is full of great extras and well worth owning. No, they didn’t pay me to say that, although they can if they want. Two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.