True crime, a genre that discusses and portrays nonfictional crimes, is a mainstay of American culture. An early example is the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, a woman tried and ultimately acquitted of the brutal murder of her father and stepmother. As the trial progressed, newspapers flew off the shelves and the question of whether she was guilty became a hot teatime topic. It may have marked one of the first crimes sensationalized within American media, but it was far from the last.
In an era of social media and biopics, true crime has evolved from something we see or read about in the news to dramatized shows portraying criminals as protagonists and entire podcasts dedicated to their crimes.
In real life, and in the series, many of Dahmer’s victims were people of color — whose deaths are often treated differently in the media or not investigated as deeply because of racism or other factors. The victims of these crimes had lives and families, yet they were reduced to a few episodes of screen time and fake limbs in some kid’s trick-or-treat basket. It’s not just podcasters or Hollywood producers, it’s true crime culture itself that is wrong — and it could even be inspiring others to replicate the violent acts they see and hear about.
Podcast juggernauts like Stephanie Soo of Rotten Mango rack up millions of views per episode, though not without being in full glam. It’s not necessarily the fact Soo and others discuss these crimes that’s worrisome, but the fact they seem to do so without a care in the world for those affected.
Soo has been criticized by viewers for her older “mukbang”-style true crime videos where she would eat copious amounts of food while discussing the tragic deaths — including often murders — of innocent people. The family and friends of these “cases” are often still alive and may have no idea that the brutal murder of their loved one is about to be discussed in excruciating detail over lunch.
True crime podcasts are disrespectful, but not as egregious as media like Monsters, which dramatizes the lives of real-life killers. One article on the website CrimeReads written by the cousin of a murder victim describes what it is like to have your family’s personal tragedy be used for entertainment and how it leaves families “sitting at home, shuddering with rage and horror as their greatest trauma is repackaged into a titillating narrative for you to consume with dinner.”
Shows and movies that depict killers walk a fine line between documentation and glorification. In its first season, Monster accumulated 1 billion hours viewed in 60 days and became the second most viewed English language show on the platform at one point, according to Netflix. The show included graphic depictions of how Dahmer abused his victims before and after their deaths — without notification or consent of the surviving family members, some families say.
Rita Isbell and Eric Perry, sister and cousin of 19-year-old Dahmer victim Errol Lindsey, called the show “retraumatizing” and “harsh and careless” in statements published in The Hollywood Reporter in 2022.
Another ripple effect of true crime can be seen in the number of copycats and seeming fans of the Columbine High School massacre, which shocked the American consciousness in 1999.
“The Columbine effect” partly describes what happens when people glorify Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or try to replicate their attack. One investigation from Mother Jones in 2019 documented “the Columbine effect” in 100 plots and attacks across the U.S.
At least one such case may have nodded to the 2003 film Zero Day, which was based on Harris and Klebold’s story, including the “basement tapes” they had filmed chronicling their plans before the mass shooting. Earlier this year, 17-year-old Solomon Henderson shot up his high school in Nashville, Tenn., killing one person and injuring another before ending his own life after writing in his online diary about wanting to shoot his mother “before Zero Day.”
Henderson, who was online with another shooter who seemed to idolize Columbine, stated on the internet several times that the Columbine killers had “style” and reposted fan art of the shooters.
The names of killers live on in infamy, while their victims seem to fade into obscurity and become footnotes in history. True crime can downplay the severity of violent acts that are selfish and depraved. Everybody gets to consume and create whatever they want. But if you or someone you loved were the victim of a tragic crime, would you be OK with someone creating content from it and profiting off of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment