Considering the backlash the Dahmer series got last year, I am surprised at the lack of criticism that the series has stirred. Of course, this is not based on real events like the Dahmer series was, but it still romanticises the very real and very current issue of predatory behaviour towards women.
Yet, even Twilight, a decade and a half later has begun to be interrogated for its romanticisation of an abusive relationship and that is much less realistic compared to You, which is dramatised but not impossible. So, why the critical absence of You?
For anyone who hasn’t yet indulged in any of the four seasons of the show, the story revolves around an attractive, bookish intellectual, Joe Goldberg (Penn Badgley). He repeatedly stalks and murders women, who he claims are his current love interest. His behavioural is predatory and alarming, but encased within a romantic polish that allows him to avoid being villainised. He is not the typical serial killer; he is witty and bookish and a bit nerdy. He is softly spoken, and this is maintained as he narrates the murders and stalking. Whether he is attractive to you personally or not, it is clear that Joe has been manufactured with the attempt of ticking every box in the conventionally attractive male archetype; the curly brown hair, recitations of poetry, constantly in a suit, whispering voice-overs and an apparent display of genuine adoration for each woman. It is a deliberate choice to present him in this way, this is no accident from the writers. Further still to the appealing nature of his character, his first-person narrative is a particular contributor to concealing his villainy; each poor decision he makes is described rationally and often attributed to an act of love or necessity, not the violent outburst it is in reality. The first-person narration also allows the focus upon his difficult childhood, that invokes a fondness towards him. The difficulty is, I too am drawn to this character, rooting for him like the tragic hero even though I am conscious that he is the villain. I feel anxious when someone starts to catch onto his plan and I feel relieved when he gets away with another violent act; basically, I cannot help but find him charming in spite of his vicious nature.
The show normalises and makes entertainment of something that is a disturbing, and not uncommon or distanced, issue. It is a controversial choice to present this programme to romanticise a violent stalker and murderer. The issue is it not solely horror-invoking, it sometimes leans into more of a romance because of how Joe is depicted. There is less of a problem with thrillers when the abuser is dislikeable, not when he is attractive and romanticised; his toxic masculinity is shrouded within his charm. This is why I am surprised that this has a place, and become popularised, without a great level of criticism. Particularly with consideration of the audience, the show is marketed towards teens and young adults, arguably making its message more problematic.
At a time when the safety of women is such an important issue, it seems like it may have been made in poor taste, but is this the whole point? Are the writers portraying the eeriness of his conflicting attractiveness and danger to warn of the deceptive nature of partners in supposed romantic relationships? Perhaps they aim to draw attention to the possibility of monsters that walk among everyone, and the ease at which women in real life are groomed, to encourage women second guessing the genuineness of their partner and not lowering their defences, in spite of their charming exterior. The writers could well be demonstrating the ease at which someone can fall into the trap that the characters fall into. The point may be that we too are easily manipulated to like Joe, like the characters in the show. If this is the case, this may be why the show has not received the level of criticism I had expected.
This article is not for the purpose of slating the show, as regardless I will still be watching the season finale, because I do not think the issues it potentially raises are intentional. The purpose was rather to discuss the reasons why it has been able to avoid backlash, when other series are not so fortunate and highlight the potential issues that. Whether this was written intentionally to highlight the ease at which attractive partners may conceal underlying sinister intentions, or as a means to attract viewers, he is still a romanticisation of a delicate and current topic. But many programmes dramatise or romanticise real life issues and they nonetheless are able to provide entertainment, so removing them is not the right step. Arguably, an appropriate action would be to have utilised this as a platform to educate women and provide support, allowing Joe’s character to entertain whilst still raising awareness for the fact that this behaviour should not be romanticised. To battle this, they could provide access to, or adverts of, services at the end of each episode to provide support and remind viewers that despite being normalised in this series, this is not normal behaviour within relationships. Especially due to the younger viewers this programme caters to, I think they have a responsibility to do so, if they are choosing to approach this current topic.