sphere wrote:
I appreciate that perspective and that was my fist impression as well. At the same time, I appreciate that there is more than one way to tell a story that is part of our historical record, and drama tends to be the genre we’re most inclined to as information consumers. I was put off by the first episode but the treatment on the whole was, in my view, informative, sympathetic and respectful to the victims. Nothing felt gratuitous or unnecessary, and in fact most of the sexual deviancy and torture was not included visually.
I think it’s in large part the recency of the tragedy that makes it feel inappropriate for dramatization, for those who feel that way about it. I think of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, endless treatments of Jack the Ripper and other examples of gruesome historical events told in dramatic treatment and few if anyone take exception.
I took away a better understanding of him as a person, his family dynamics, the context in which these murders happened and the way it affected victims’ families, their community and society at large. It did not glorify Dahmer or use his crimes for cheap thrills. So in terms of telling the story in this media format, I think they got it mostly right.
Regardless of what I think of motives behind the series, I appreciate your response
The GMAN wrote:
They de-emphasized the showing of the violence for the most part. You’d hear power tools whirring, people screaming, and such but they didn’t really show the murders per se. They did show some aftermath like severed heads in his fridge and dead bodies lying around his apartment.
It wasn’t like watching Hostel. Probably the most violence shown was when Dahmer got beat to death in prison. They pretty much showed the entirety of that.
Even with that, the problem I have with shows like this is that it invariably is centered on the life of a psychopath who is known only for the deviant and violent ways by which he unleashed his psychopathy on society. The psychopath's name is literally the name of the show. I also really couldn't care less to learn about traumas he received in his formative years. Most victims carry on without wondering how they can "pay it forward" with their own acts of psychopathy.
Upthread, dramatization of historical figures or events were mentioned, and I think it's worth differentiating between psychopaths known for other things and psychopaths known only for their deviance. Stalin was a psychopath despot, as were Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. But each was also historically important for reasons beyond the actual murderous acts inflicted, not to mention that they all had their henchmen carrying out the actual cruel and violent deeds.
The same isn't true of Dahmer here. He alone was responsible for the reprehensible acts, and his infamy rests squarely on his psychopathic deviance.
I think the following from post #24 above was spot on
kiki wrote:
Why not give biopics to torturers in Bagdad, Juarez, occupied Ukraine? Aren't their lives complex and compelling too?
my take is don't put human wreckage who did nothing noteworthy except dismember people in the spotlight