‘Monster’: Are true crime TV shows ethical or exploitative?

Every few months, a new true crime series rises to the top of the most-watched charts, luring audiences with disturbing mysteries. Most recently, Netflix released the next season in the anthology “Monsters: The Menendez Brothers”. Aside from being another captivating, almost addictive series in the true crime genre, it has also brought with it a lot of controversy, both among audiences and those who are comfortable with the story it portrays. are connected. This is not surprising, since a similar situation arose in response to the first part of the “Monsters” anthology “Dahmer”.

This new series explores the true case of Erik (Cooper Koch) and Lyle Menendez (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), two brothers who were involved in the planned murder of their parents Jose (Javier Bardem) and Kitty Menendez (Chloë Sevigny). The series looks at the context of the case, personal perspectives and the subsequent court decision.

Recently, the series drew criticism online over concerns of exploitation, lack of communication with families, factual inaccuracy and general insensitivity. A TV critic from Variety also described it as “not sure what it’s supposed to be.” This is not the first time, as the “Dahmer” series by the same directors was also criticized a few years ago because it focused too much on the perspective of the murderer, the families of the victims did not consent and seemed glorifying and the way and Way the show was marketed by Netflix.

The concerns are largely based on personal discomfort and ethical questions about what constitutes glorification or exploitation in entertainment. Additionally, the Menendez family released a more general statement that the series is “a phobic, gross, anachronistic episodic nightmare that is not only full of falsehoods and outright untruths, but also ignores recent exculpatory revelations.” Creating true crime or biographical entertainment in general, it is essential to communicate with those involved in the true life story. Given this, the question naturally arises as to whether the authors were more interested in financial gain than valuable comments.

True crime is an extremely popular genre. A YouGov Today survey found that over 50 percent of Americans consume true crime content. It’s worth keeping in mind that a show like Monsters, which takes into account both seasons, is a form of entertainment and therefore could certainly be interpreted as exploiting the stories of those involved. Profiting from murderous events – and in the case of “Dahmer,” from the traumatized victims and their families – is by no means an ethical practice. When creating a true crime series, you have to look at the “why.” That means both why it was made and why it is being watched. “Monsters” appears to be another example of twisting and distorting complex and vague real-life murders and turning them into sensational entertainment.

The show takes place in an almost reserved environment where, in order not to denigrate any particular perspective, it can fail to provide meaningful commentary. The dialogue between the brothers can seem perfunctory at times and serves no purpose other than to humanize the characters. The inclusion of incest seems blatantly contrived for the purpose of entertainment and merely added as a shocking flourish.

The factual and ethical concerns return to a key question of how and when it is acceptable to fictionalize real events, particularly of this dark nature. Given the pointless entertainment value of a series of this nature, the lack of communication with those involved, and the distortion of facts for shock value, the existence of “Monsters” may be disturbing to some. Lacking careful creation and critical consumption, “Monsters” comes across as glorifying at best and grossly exploitative at worst.