Her Campus Logo Her Campus Logo
Culture > Entertainment

Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story – Enlightening And Informative, Or Exploitative And Insulting?

This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at DCU chapter.

TW: This article includes discussion on LGBTQ+ violence, violence against POC and sexual violence

Netflix’s most controversial mini-series to date has become one of the streaming services most watched series of all time. Accumulating 496.05 million viewing hours in just 12 days, ‘Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story’ has become the second most-viewed series on Netflix. However, despite its traction, Evan Peters’ portrayal of the ‘Milwaukee Monster,’ has provoked criticism from those questioning the ethics of the dramatization of true crimes such as that of Dahmer’s. Since its premiere, the show has received considerable backlash for its exploitation of the pain of black people at the hands of Dahmer.

When the series was first announced, writers Murphy and Brennan promised to tell a story centred around the victims of Dahmer, from their point of view. However, over the 10-part series, the only victim with any sort of narrative was Tony Hughes. Instead, the series focuses on Dahmer’s descent into his murderous, cannibalistic tendencies. From the beginning, viewers are told the story of a young boy living in a troubled home. With an addict mother and a workaholic father, the series presents us with a backstory, perhaps in an innocent attempt to theorise what was to come. 

Through the telling of his troubled childhood, we see a man self-flagellate for being a social outcast; whether that be in childhood or adulthood, Dahmer is shown to be a lonely, depressed man who falls into crime due to his rough upbringing. Whether or not that was the intention of the series, “Monster” reduces Dahmer’s heinous crimes to childhood trauma. 

The very first episode being set in the early years of his childhood emphasises this even more. This has allowed viewers to humanise Dahmer, and in some cases even relate with and sympathise with him. This is not unusual in the slightest, who wouldn’t feel sorry for a child living in such an awful home? However, the reality is that Jeffrey Dahmer brutally murdered, raped and ate his victims. He was a murderer and a necrophiliac, and Netflix gave him the spotlight. They humanised a man who spent much of his adulthood preying on vulnerable gay men and boys of colour. In this way, the series fails to honour the lives of victims, instead turning Dahmer into an icon, a ‘tragic antihero.’

Netflix failed to give a voice to those whose voice has too frequently been excluded from such narratives. The series should have shed a light on the lives of the victims and how the barbaric behaviour of Dahmer destroyed the lives of those victims as well as their families. In this way, the series would have avoided glamorising Dahmer, and instead raised public awareness about how certain victims’ race, sexual orientation and economic status made, and still makes them less of a priority to law enforcement. Vulture describes the portrayal of this phenomenon as being marked, “with a highlighter instead of actually building deeper narratives around them.” The best thing this series could have done was allow viewers to appreciate the inequalities within law enforcement and within the justice system generally, and reflect on the irreversible repercussions that such inequalities have had and continue to have on the lives of young LGBTQ+ people of colour.

On top of its unethical depiction, comes the unethical production of the series also. Upon the release of the show, Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey (one of many of Dahmer’s victims) spoke out, stating that she herself was depicted in the series without her consent. She states that she, ‘was never contacted about the show. I feel like Netflix should’ve asked if we mind or how we felt about making it. They didn’t ask me anything. They just did it.

Netflix has exploited the pain and trauma of black people for entertainment, by attempting to tell their stories without actually speaking to them about those stories. As well as that, Isbell revealed that watching the recreation of her victim impact statement, “felt like reliving it all over again.” If the series truly wished to give victims a voice, why were they not given the opportunity to use that voice in the making of the series? One of Isbell’s cousins took to Twitter also to share his thoughts on the series saying ‘I’m not telling anyone what to watch, I know true crime media is huge rn, but if you’re actually curious about the victims, my family (the Isbell’s) are pissed about this show. It’s retraumatizing over and over again, and for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?’.

It seems as though this series is a depiction of Hollywood’s mandate to constantly entertain, rather than an informative depiction of how America’s justice system fails people of colour. 

The creators of Monster were presented with the perfect opportunity to utilise the true crime format to explore the lives of Dahmer’s victims. They were given the platform to highlight the real, and ongoing issue of systemic racism within law enforcement. However, the series fundamentally failed the victims along with their families and once again we were unfortunately presented with a glorified version of a white killer. 

The series without a doubt leaves much to be desired.

If such discussions upset or trigger you in any way please reach out to any of the below:

20 year old law student. HerCampus DCU Editor in Chief