The monstrous crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer, the Milwaukee Monster, have captivated the true-crime community for decades. His gruesome acts shocked the world, leaving an indelible mark on the public consciousness. Now, Netflix has thrust Dahmer back into the spotlight with their new miniseries, “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,” starring Evan Peters. While the show has garnered immense popularity, quickly becoming one of the streaming giant’s most-watched series, it has also ignited a firestorm of controversy.
Netflix Under Fire: Did They Betray the Victims for Viewership?
At the heart of the controversy lies the show’s central claim: to give a voice to the victims. However, this assertion has been met with outrage from the families of those murdered by Dahmer, who allege they were completely left in the dark throughout the entire production process. This lack of communication has only amplified their pain, forcing them to relive the horror of Dahmer’s crimes through the show’s graphic depictions and the insensitive publicity surrounding it.
Rita Isbell, the sister of one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims, delivers her victim impact statement in court
Eric Perry, a cousin of Errol Lindsey, one of Dahmer’s victims, expressed his family’s anger and frustration on Twitter, stating, “I’m not telling anyone what to watch, I know true crime media is huge right now, but if you’re actually curious about the victims, my family (the Isbells) are pissed about this show. It’s re-traumatizing over and over again, and for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?”
This raises a crucial ethical question: should the families of victims be consulted and involved in projects that revisit and reimagine the crimes committed against their loved ones? While legal obligations might not exist, the moral imperative to respect the families’ trauma and to handle their stories with sensitivity seems glaringly evident.
Blurring the Lines: Is “Monster” True Crime or Exploitative Entertainment?
Adding fuel to the fire is the show’s format itself. Unlike traditional documentaries that rely on archival footage, expert interviews, and testimonies from those directly involved in the case, “Monster” employs actors to recreate scenes from Dahmer’s life and crimes.
One particularly harrowing scene depicts the emotional victim impact statement delivered by Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey, against Dahmer in court. This scene, recreated in detail with actor DaShawn Barnes portraying Isbell, sparked widespread criticism for its perceived exploitation of a deeply personal and painful moment.
A scene from the Netflix series "DAHMER – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story" featuring Evan Peters as Jeffrey Dahmer
Isbell, deeply disturbed by the show’s portrayal of her experience, voiced her concerns, saying, “I was never contacted about the show. I feel like Netflix should have asked if we mind or how we felt about making it. They didn’t ask me anything. They just did it.” This statement underscores the ethical tightrope that true crime productions walk, often facing accusations of prioritizing sensationalism and entertainment value over the very real and lasting suffering of victims and their families.
Adding another layer of controversy was Netflix’s decision to initially label the series as LGBTQ+, given the sexual orientation of many of Dahmer’s victims. However, following immediate backlash from the LGBTQ+ community, the streaming giant removed the tag.
This decision sparked further debate: was the initial categorization an attempt to capitalize on the LGBTQ+ audience, and was the subsequent removal a knee-jerk reaction to criticism rather than a genuine acknowledgment of the ethical concerns raised? The situation highlights the challenges of representation and sensitivity, particularly when dealing with marginalized communities that have historically been silenced or misrepresented.
Questioning the Narrative: Did Police Incompetence and Prejudice Play a Role in Dahmer’s Reign of Terror?
The series also faces scrutiny for its portrayal of the Milwaukee Police Department’s handling of the Dahmer case. Former Milwaukee D.A. Michael McCann, who prosecuted Dahmer in the 1990s, has publicly criticized the show for suggesting that police negligence, potentially influenced by the victims’ race and sexual orientation, allowed Dahmer to evade capture for as long as he did.
However, many viewers and critics argue that the series sheds light on systemic issues within law enforcement, particularly concerning racial and LGBTQ+ bias. Glenda Cleveland, a Black woman who lived near Dahmer and repeatedly contacted the police about his suspicious activities, was repeatedly dismissed by authorities. Her story, powerfully portrayed by Niecy Nash in the series, underscores the real-world consequences of prejudice and indifference within law enforcement agencies.
While McCann maintains that the police investigation, though ultimately unsuccessful in apprehending Dahmer sooner, was not hindered by prejudice, the series’ portrayal of events suggests otherwise. This discrepancy between the official narrative and the lived experiences of marginalized communities during that era raises important questions about who gets to control the narrative and whose voices are heard.
The Larger Conversation: Is the True Crime Genre Glamorizing Violence?
The controversy surrounding “Monster” extends beyond the specifics of the Dahmer case, sparking a wider conversation about the ethical implications of the true crime genre as a whole. By putting infamous figures like Dahmer back in the spotlight, even with the intention of exploring the psychology of such individuals and the societal factors that contribute to their crimes, do these productions inadvertently contribute to their notoriety?
This concern becomes even more pronounced when considering the actors portraying these killers. The casting of charismatic actors like Evan Peters and Zac Efron, who previously starred in a Ted Bundy biopic, has been criticized for potentially glamorizing these figures and attracting unwanted admiration from certain viewers.
While it is undeniable that true crime content satisfies a public fascination with the macabre and the inexplicable, the line between exploration and exploitation can be thin. As viewers, we must remain critical of the content we consume, considering the potential impact on victims and their families and engaging in thoughtful discussions about the ethical boundaries of the true crime genre.
Moving Forward: Finding a Balance Between Captivation and Compassion in True Crime
The conversation surrounding “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” is far from over. It compels us to confront uncomfortable truths about our fascination with true crime, the entertainment industry’s responsibility towards ethical storytelling, and the ongoing fight for justice and recognition for marginalized communities.
As we continue to grapple with these complex issues, it’s crucial to prioritize empathy, understanding, and respect for those directly affected by these horrific crimes. The stories of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims, their families, and the systemic failures that allowed his reign of terror to continue deserve to be heard, but it’s our collective responsibility to ensure those stories are told with sensitivity, accuracy, and a deep commitment to honoring their memory.