During this month of October many sites and blogs, including this one, are discussing the many shocks and scares from the countless horror films through the decades. Horror films and shock thrillers deal with gore and violence as a matter of course. It's their bread and butter. Some choose to deal with suspense and suggestion instead (Cat People being a notable example) but most go for the jugular and give 
fans what they came for: blood, death and gore. But when is it gratuitous and when is it good for the story? Gratuitous is probably the wrong word to use because since the violence is often a part of the story it could be argued that nothing a horror film shows should be labeled gratuitous. With other films operating outside the classic definitions of the horror genre, it is not so clear cut. One classic example of filmmakers and censors deciding that a movie had gone too far was the original version of King Kong (1933).
After Kong rolls several of the expedition crew off the log bridge over the ravine to the depths below we are shown their lifeless bodies banging against rock and branches on the way down. End of scene. But in the uncut pre-release version three expedition members remain alive and battle all manner of giant insects and arachnids. Censors felt it was going too far. Of course, by today's standards that judgment is laughable but oddly censors sometimes make the right decision artistically without even knowing it. The problem is they are making it for the filmmaker who should be the one making the final decision, not the censor. In the case of King Kong it could go either way. Frankly there is so much going on in the first half of the movie concerning battles with Pterodactyls, Tyrannosaurus Rexes, and other manner of oversized beast and serpent that being spared this scene was probably a wise decision for pacing purposes 
alone. It's the one extended scene where none of the principal players are involved so doing without it probably made the film better.
With other films it's not so easily dismissed. There are many films in the horror genre that deal with brutal violence, torture and slayings from the Friday the 13th series through the current Saw and Hostel series. Here I will not deal with gore filled scenes but with one scene from a very different film that has great psychological impact on the viewer. It is the home intrusion scene from Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
In Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer there is a scene of a home intrusion that is videotaped by the perpetrators. Because the scene is shown to us through the viewfinder of the video camera it takes on a verisimilitude that makes the action seem all too real for the viewer unlike the cinematically self-aware cleverness of Funny Games, which done eleven years later seems like a feature length accounting of this single scene. It should be noted however that nothing in the entire course of Funny Games even approaches the stomach-churning power of this one brief scene in Henry.
The viewer is shown the father, tied up and beaten on the couch and the mother in a chair being fondled and abused by Otis, Henry's sidekick. It is disturbing enough at this point but the scene goes in an unexpected direction when the couple's son comes home and stands confused for a 
moment while the mother screams for him to run. Henry drops the camera and runs to catch the boy who is brought over in front of the mother. The viewer is now watching the scene at a tilted angle as the video camera has been dropped to the ground and is resting on its side. The father is killed before the mother's eyes and then the son has his neck broken, also in front of the mother. As his lifeless body lies on the floor of their living room Otis begins to stick his hands down the mother's shirt. Before the scene is over the camera will reveal that Otis is at home now watching the videotape of their intrusion for his continued amusement.
It is not an exaggeration to confess that the first time I saw this scene I felt a little sick afterwards. It's a scene that is horrifying to behold. And I have another confession to make. I watched the scene again because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. When it was over the second time I felt even worse. In fact, the scene is so disturbing that it casts an enormous shadow over the rest of the film. After it has occurred you can't think of anything else but it. And ten or twenty years down the road of reminiscence, it's all you remember.
Which brings us to the question posed by the title of this piece: Was it necessary?
Before that scene and after it we are provided ample evidence of Henry's moral emptiness as he and Otis kill randomly and employ different methods each time. We know from Henry's conversations with Becky, Otis' sister, that he is a violent and remorseless man, who killed his 
own mother. So what does this scene add to the equation? On the surface, one would have to say absolutely nothing. It doesn't show Henry to be more of a killer than anything else or even less remorseful. But it is the way it is shot (through the video camera's viewfinder) and the subject matter (a family, the murder of a child) that separates it from the rest of the film and perhaps provides a clue as to its inclusion.
It has been suggested that this scene was meant to play off of the audience's own voyeuristic tendencies, a disturbing way to have us "identify" with the killers or to catch us in our own hypocrisy as we are repulsed and yet watch anyway. I myself, as noted before, watched it twice. But there is nothing in the rest of the film that suggests that director John McNaughton had the artistic or intellectual flair for this kind of exercise in a film so devoid of stylistic touches. The whole style of the film would appear to be an absence of style. It is clear that the director intends to show a straightforward account of a remorseless and brutal human being and not let theatrics get in the way.
On the DVD commentary McNaughton says he views this scene as the centerpiece of the film but offers no further insightful elaboration. My final guess is that he
thought it would appear more realistic if shown through the lens of the camera and thus stay in line with the ideal of the film - to show raw unidealized violence. He was correct. But the question remains, was it necessary? Does the film need this scene? It's at this point in any analysis of a scene or film that I will provide my answer, my thoughts on the subject at hand. But here, I have no answer. Or perhaps I have too many. There are times when I believe without this scene the full horror of Henry would not be communicated to the audience, while at other times I know this is not true and that Henry is clearly drawn before the audience as a monster without the inclusion of this scene. It is at those times that I feel the director was simply being greedy, having a diabolical idea to haunt the audience and unwilling to part with it. To paraphrase an old aphorism, used in countless conversations and even in movies*, he was so delighted by the fact that he could do it that he never stopped to think if he should do it.
So what is it? Necessary illumination of Henry's character or cheap exploitation of realistic violence? If there was a pat answer the scene wouldn't be controversial. Controversies do not arise from agreement. And make no mistake, there is a disagreement at work, even within the movie itself. The scene stands out. It is separate from the rest of the film. It is difficult to watch. And in the end it tells us nothing more about Henry that we haven't gathered by all that surrounds it. So why is it in the movie? Why was it done? Why am I even writing about it? Well I may not know why it's in the movie but I do know why I'm writing about it. For that I'll cede the floor to mountaineer George Mallory who was asked in March 1923 why he was attempting to reach the summit of Mount Everest. His famous answer: "Because it's there."
________________________________________________________________
*Well at least in Jurassic Park as I recall...
