True crime is a genre that has grown to be immensely popular since the 2010s, through the rise of biopics, streamable podcasts, and even YouTube series such as BuzzFeed Unsolved. While it evidently has a cult following (pun intended), it’s one of those genres that is extremely hit or miss for me. I’m someone who is very easily frightened, but I definitely gain fascination when I get into a story. Yet that’s the problem: The tellings of these crimes aren’t simply stories meant for our entertainment, but real events that impacted real lives. The name of the genre can attest to this, literally being called true crime. Because the source material is based on true events, extremely dark ones at that, the framework of the media created is extremely important, and getting it wrong can have severe negative consequences. The true crime genre: What are the moral limitations to depicting real criminal events?
I wanted to start this article by focusing on the show that inspired my thinking on this issue: Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. The show came out on Netflix in 2022 and is centered around the life and killings of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who was known for targeting men of color during the 1990s, many of whom never received justice. Right off the bat, this show as a whole was extremely confusing to me. Mainly, I was unsure of who the target audience was supposed to be. Certainly, the people who were alive to remember the gruesome events wouldn’t want to relive them, keeping in mind just how recently these crimes were committed. However, I decided to give it a chance when I found out it was created by Ryan Murphy, who has done well with true crime TV shows in the past such as American Crime Story. And after watching the show in its entirety, I’m here to tell you that I’m still extremely confused.
The show itself is extremely well acted; Evan Peters, who plays Dahmer, gives a chillingly convincing performance. I’d like to make it clear that the acting is not my issue with this show. However, it’s unclear what the overall message is supposed to be. From the trailer, it seems the show is finally going to tell the stories of all the victims who never received justice because of the broken system that failed them. But it doesn’t. The primary focus of the show is Jeffrey Dahmer’s story. It follows him from childhood into adulthood, showcasing how his life was never easy because he never felt like he belonged anywhere in society. But at the end of the show, it’s stated clearly that it’s impossible to truly understand how somebody can get to the point where they do things as unnatural and evil as the things Dahmer did. So what was the point of spending more than half of the series depicting the personal trials and tribulations of his life? Was it meant to make viewers sympathetic towards him? To excuse his actions? Explain them away? If the writers were going to take the stance that it’s impossible to understand him, then why spend the series attempting that very endeavor?
Yes, I’ve praised shows in the past such as Barry and Breaking Bad that showcase main characters who do awful things and explain the ways in which a person can get to a place where they do such things, ultimately humanizing the protagonist. The key difference, however, is that those shows are completely fictional. The protagonists are fake people who impacted fake lives, and it serves no other purpose than entertainment. True crime is a completely different story. I was hoping that Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story would be an opportunity to showcase the lives of the victims, which did not get enough media attention at the time of Dahmer’s arrest. Instead, we’re left with an almost horror movie monster-like anti-hero, who was tortured and misunderstood by everyone around him, yet we’re still supposed to see him as a completely evil person. It simply doesn’t make sense.
My other issue with the show is that the events it was based on are a bit too recent for comfort. It was only about 30 years ago when Dahmer was caught and arrested, so the families of the victims are all still alive. And while the show does do a good job at showcasing the white privilege that allowed him to get away with his crimes for decades, that is simply all it does in regard to giving the families some sort of justice. At the end of the series, when Dahmer’s horrifying actions were finally exposed to the public, the show covers the disturbing ways in which some people treated the situation as an interesting and supernatural monster story, almost deifying Dahmer. With the families of the victims receiving Jeffrey Dahmer biographies in the mail and being asked to autograph them, it’s meant to make viewers uncomfortable with the fame, attention, and fascination he is receiving from the public. But isn’t that exactly what the show itself is also doing? One of the most streamed shows of fall 2022, with Dahmer becoming a popular Halloween costume that year, and many people on TikTok making videos about how attractive Evan Peters is as the character, the show does the very thing that it looks down upon.
The YouTube video, Who is Dahmer Even Made For?, poses the question: “How do you think these real people you were portraying were going to feel seeing Dahmer’s face plastered all over the homepage of Netflix and seeing it break streaming record after streaming record? Probably the same way they felt getting copies of unauthorized biographies to sign and seeing people take pictures in front of the apartments just as you’ve depicted.” He continues: “Imagine being Tracy Edwards right now, that you escape being murdered, just to be reduced to an audience surrogate in a creepy horror sequence. You don’t learn anything about him, how he feels, his dreams, his experiences…do you see how in this scenario his character basically only serves Dahmer’s story?”
Shirley Hughes, mother of Tony Hughes, one of Dahmer’s victims, even spoke out against the creation of the show in an interview with TMZ. “I don’t see how they can do that,” Hughes said, before adding that it was difficult to talk about Tony’s murder and politely ending the call. “I don’t see how they can use our names and put our stuff out there like that.” She later added: “It’s a shame that people can take our tragedy and make money. The victims never saw a cent. We go through these emotions every day.” It’s heartbreaking to see the neglectful ways in which the stories of real people get watered down and reduced for the sake of entertainment. Yet the true crime genre continues to profit off of that.
Now that I’ve discussed an example of a true crime depiction that did more harm than good, I want to discuss a few examples of true crime shows and movies I felt served a better purpose. Funny enough, a few of them were also created by Ryan Murphy. In his series American Crime Story, the seasons The People vs O.J. Simpson and Impeachment come to mind as examples of the true crime genre being used to showcase a new perspective. The People vs O.J. Simpson showcases what happens when a beloved icon is charged with a crime. The attorneys and detectives of his case take center stage as they are tormented by the fans of O.J Simpson who pressure them to prove him innocent, while also attempting to bring justice to the case. The show also presents the impacts on the black community. O.J. Simpson is not a protagonist whose childhood is used to explain why he would commit a crime. His personal story is merely an accessory to a larger case study. Similarly, with Impeachment, the story follows Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and the trial that followed. However, Bill Clinton is not the main character of the show, and far from it. The season is completely from Monica’s perspective, giving a voice to the person who was mainly silenced and scrutinized when the scandal took place.
Another example that comes to mind is the film Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile which takes place during the Ted Bundy trial. Similarly to American Crime Story, the film doesn’t tell Ted Bundy’s biographical story. His crimes are instead told through the perspective of his girlfriend, Liz Kendall, as she follows his trial, bringing to light the denial and grief of somebody who was close to a murderer. The film similarly showcases the disturbing ways in which Ted Bundy was seen as “too attractive to be a murderer” by some of the public. I think casting Zac Efron in the role was a smart choice on behalf of the production team. As a viewer, you almost don’t want to think that someone played by Zac Efron should be guilty of such horrific crimes, and you find yourself in a sense trying to be on his side. Because of this, the film brings a very interesting social commentary into the conversation.
The same YouTube video from before states: “These are things that David Fincher’s True Crime Projects like Zodiac and Mindhunter have always been great at. The Zodiac Killer is not the central character of Zodiac. The film is centered around an ensemble of journalists at the San Francisco Chronicle. Mind Hunter isn’t a show centered around Ed Kemper or Charles Manson, it is a story involving them told through the perspective of an ensemble of FBI agents.” By giving different perspectives the chance to be displayed, true crime fans can still get the thrill of watching a criminal case while not deifying a criminal. There are ways to tell the story of a murderer or a criminal case without being insensitive to the parties involved or attempting to excuse the actions being portrayed. The true crime genre as a whole has the ability to bring new perspectives, truths, and ways of thinking to a situation. All it takes is the correct framing.
By Chloe Stefani ‘24, Fashion Editor
24cstefani@montroseschool.org
