DAHMER
Added 2022-10-10 20:03:41 +0000 UTCHas anyone seen the netflix show out of curiosity? If so, gimme your thoughts!
Comments
EDIT: Looking over what was posted, I didn’t realize I said virtually the same thing about Evan Peters as you did, even down to the word “aura.” My bad, Atticus.
Bennett Oliver
2022-10-14 03:09:17 +0000 UTCJust watched the third episode. I’m starting to see what you mean about Evan Peters. He seems a little too boyish and soft-edged for the role. The real Dahmer, who was handsome in a more chiseled, anonymous way than Peters, had a stony, reptilian look to him that the actor can’t match. No matter how intently he tries to give a dead-eyed stare, it doesn’t measure up to the real thing. He doesn’t have the same aura. As for garnering sympathy…well, if I’m going to spend several hours with a character, I would hope to find something to relate to or at least an understanding of where they’re coming from. I don’t think it’s impossible, or even outrageous, for the series to attempt to do such a thing for Dahmer. At least at the point where I’m at, it’s not trying to craft an apologia for his actions (how do you even begin to do that for 17 murders?). It’s only trying to understand where the motivation comes from. To understand why Dahmer kills people is not the same as defending or excusing him. But it could be argued that Murphy is leaning a little too heavily into the lonely boy motivation—that Dahmer kills so people don’t leave him—especially considering that Dahmer’s idea of companionship is having an unconscious body lying around that he can do whatever he wants to. It soft pedals the notion that Dahmer wants dominance and ultimate control over the people he desires—a not uncommon trait in serial killers—and he achieves that through death. I’m not bored by these initial episodes the way you were, but I am glad that the series is going to broaden its scope in later episodes. If this were simply to do what it’s doing right now—trace through the life and murders of Dahmer—its entire run, it would become tedious. I welcome the other perspectives, especially Lionel’s. That scene with him and the police in the first episode is still my favorite. The point you make about these episodes exploring Dahmer as covering overfamiliar ground is certainly a more valid one than the one I was ranting about in my previous post, and it’s one I agree with. Serial killers, real and fictional, have been done to death in movies and TV, with no real, true discovery made as to why they are the way they are. Madness in someone is ultimately not something to be explained anyway, and to do so would diminish it. But I certainly feel that artists have a right to explore it in any capacity, which is why I roll my eyes so hard whenever something like this series or a documentary comes out, and the bullshit knee-jerk responses follow along in articles with the words “glorifying” and “exploitative” getting thrown about. They get said just for the fact that they’re examining real-life serial killers. It’s not that movies and docs about them aren’t capable of being those things (I’ve seen my share). It’s just that those words get used a little too lightly and even sometimes prematurely. As far as this series on Dahmer goes, I still haven’t made up my mind. But I’ll keep going.
Bennett Oliver
2022-10-12 05:16:16 +0000 UTCCompletely agree with this assessment! Evan Peters made us feel sorry for his character and is struggles; he didn't have the aura of the real Dahmer who is like a flesh eating demon wearing the skin of "Joe Average". Until you look into his eyes that is. Not to say Peters couldn't project this, but the movie (Murphy) didn't seem interested in that aspect. Taking your point even further, and I understand this is a stretch, but Murphy comes very close to being a Dahmer apologist, despite his contemporary-woke façade. That was the part of the series that felt flimsy and trite. Richard Jenkins is also my favorite part of this whole thing. His pain, regret, and love are genuinely felt.
Atticus Xey
2022-10-12 02:48:47 +0000 UTCI think it was Roger Ebert who said something to the extant that "based on true events" or "inspired by" doesn't make it fact, or true and for sure not the "actual event itself". The problem in today's Twitter-centric culture nothing good can be made when consideration for someone's feelings come into play. It seems silly to state the obvious but no good art has ever been made by committee. I'm sure you get my drift. I found myself feeling sorry for the Jeff Dahmer portrayed in this series, and that was because so much of the true deviance and sickness of Dahmer is left out. I could go on and on...
Atticus Xey
2022-10-11 21:21:41 +0000 UTCYeah the first several episodes felt drawn out and boring because it's all stuff that has been covered far too much, I think. It got more interesting as it went along, because we hear new stories that are rarely dramatized. But yeah...problem is when you make a show where you pretend like the victims are the ones who deserve the spotlight...you end up sacrificing a lot of dramatic tension. I would've respected the show far more if it didnt pretend to be so averse to Dahmer, when it's clear they are more interested because...he's obviously the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. No shame in that from my perspective. It's entertainment.
Deepfocuslens
2022-10-11 21:13:33 +0000 UTCSo, I will say, the show does definitely open up the world to share more the victim stories as it goes along, particularly in the second half, and it delves more into the court stuff in the aftermath. I preferred that a lot more than the earlier episodes, which are boring as hell. I too, know a lot about Dahmer, and quite a few notorious serial killers. So it felt masturbatory. The show did piss me off, but not really for the same reasons as others I dont think. I think it was about time we hear something new added to the story we dont hear often emphasized. And we get to see more how things were handled from Lionel's point of view, which I find to be the most compelling character by far. And Jenkins as you say, is fantastic all the way through. The problem with Evan Peters is that he is giving a sympathetic performance, and he's too likeable, too handsome. There's something removed, cold, and awkward, and very normal, almost invisible, about Dahmer's energy as a person, and that needed to be brought out a helluva lot more than it was. But for me the issue is the creators (but really, what else do you expect from Ryan Murphy?). They are preaching one thing, while being complete hypocrites in the process. They are saying we should focus on the victims, minorities having a voice, and dismissing white privilege, ya know...the typical propaganda we get ad nauseam. But...it's pretending like it's doing something super noble by doing this. When in reality, it's clear they are far more interested in Dahmer. That's fine. We all are. I don't think there's shame in that. But...be more honest about it lol. Don't pretend like there's no use in probing Dahmer's psychology, when that's clearly all you want to do. But the show is pretty trashy, pretty pointless in my eyes, other than giving us new insight that we often dont see dramatized about this particular story. But ultimately, it's another show surrendering to aesthetics and glamorization of something, while they virtue signal in the same breath.
Deepfocuslens
2022-10-11 21:05:58 +0000 UTCI held off on watching the series for a number of reasons. The main ones being that I’m familiar enough with Dahmer’s story to not have the need to invest 10 hours in watching it, and I didn’t want the series to color my perception of the underrated 2002 film starring Jeremy Renner, who is superb in it (it was his breakout role). But I finally gave in and watched the first two episodes. I thought they were fairly well-done. Evan Peters is doing a good job playing Dahmer, and I want to see more of Richard Jenkins as his father (he has a really good breakdown scene when he learns of his son’s crimes) and Niecy Nash as the neighbor. My final verdict is out until I finish the entire series, but I have to say that I don’t care for the discourse surrounding it from various cultural critics—people who express resentment and disgust that such a project was made and giving attention to a notorious serial killer, and feel that its very existence slanders the victims and loved ones. I’m aware that later episodes are going to delve into the fallout of Dahmer’s crimes—the people who were traumatized and suffered losses from what he did—as well as examine the unjust social conditions that allowed Dahmer to get away with it for so long (the second episode depicts the infamous event where officers put a teenage victim back into Dahmer’s custody because they didn’t want to deal with homosexuals), but these critics are angry that the series gives any focus whatsoever to Dahmer’s pathology and backstory, proclaiming that such acts of “humanization” are immoral and irresponsible, and declaring that more time should instead be given to the victims. They even question why people would want to know more about a serial killer in the first place. I have no doubt that a great, compelling movie or TV show can be made about an individual or group of people who suffered at the hands of a murderer, but to call into question people’s interest in serial killers? Why wouldn’t people be interested in them? Why wouldn’t we want to explore the darkness that drives such people to depravity? Yes, there are creeps out there who get off on their fascination with killers, even allowing it to turn into awe or reverence, but the vast majority of people who have an interest in people like Dahmer, or Gacy, or Bundy (or true crime in general), very much have a sense of morality and a healthy perspective on who these people are. They can look into the abyss and still comprehend the damage these killers caused, the lives they took. I understand why people, whether they were involved in the real-life events or not, do not want to watch such things be depicted in movies or TV, and feel that it is an act of exploitation. But in making a movie or TV show about any real-life event, regardless of how much tact and respect is given to those involved, there is always going to be a degree of exploitation. An artist utilizing a true event to give their own interpretation and fulfill their artistic needs. In telling a story about a serial killer, we need to get some sense of who the victims were, to at least get a glimpse of the humanity that is being snuffed out. They cannot merely be meat for the grinder. But attention must be given to the killer himself. He is one half of the horrible equation after all. To say that it is a moral imperative to focus entirely on the suffering of the victims and ignore the killer is complete foolishness. There is no “morality” involved in doing such a thing. On the contrary, to have and preserve a curiosity about people like Dahmer is integral to our humanity. To lose that curiosity and give in to complete and utter judgment can lead to another kind of inhumanity, one far less gruesome but destructive nonetheless. I’ll finish out the series and see where it goes, but that’s how I feel about it so far.
Bennett Oliver
2022-10-11 06:13:42 +0000 UTCI did watch Dahmer and found it to be far too long and because it was intentional about respecting the victim's families did not go far enough in exploring the really dark, satanic and fucked up aspect of Dahmer. The first four episodes are disturbing, but then it spends a lot of time sort of drifting between time periods and zeroing in on a specific victim. I wrote in my Letterboxd review "how many scenes do we need inside of a nightclub?". I will say though that the performances of Richard Jenkins as Lionel Dahmer, Niece Nash as Glenda and Evan Peters as Jeff are all fantastic. Niece Nash really nails it and just about steals the show. However, I doubt I'll ever watch it again.
Atticus Xey
2022-10-11 04:39:56 +0000 UTCNetflix doesn't deserve any attention outside of some government watch lists after they promoted Cuties.
Wolfman Brandon
2022-10-11 01:59:16 +0000 UTC
