Every few months, a new true crime series rises to the top of most watched charts, alluring audiences through unsettling mystery. Most recently, Netflix released the next season in the anthology “Monsters: The Menendez Brothers.” Aside from being another engaging, almost addictive series in the true crime genre, it has come with its fair share of controversy, both from audiences and those connected to the story it portrays. This is not a surprising, as a similar situation arose in response to the first part of the “Monsters” anthology, “Dahmer.”
This new series examines the real life case of Erik (Cooper Koch) and Lyle Menendez (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), two brothers who acted in the planned murder of their parents, Jose (Javier Bardem) and Kitty Menendez (Chloë Sevigny). The series delves into the context surrounding the case, personal perspectives, and the court decision that followed.
Recently, the series has garnered online criticism over exploitation concerns, a lack of communication with families, factual incorrectness, and overall insensitivity. A Variety TV critic also described it as having “no idea what it wants to be.” This is not the first time, as the “Dahmer” series, by the same directors, was criticized similarly a couple of years back for being too focused on the perspective of the killer, a lack of consent from the families of the victims, glorification, and the way the show was marketed by Netflix.
The concerns are largely based around personal discomfort and ethical questions of what constitutes glorification or exploitation in entertainment. Additionally, the Menendez family posted a more general statement that the series is “a phobic, gross, anachronistic, serial episode nightmare that is not only riddled with mistruths and outright falsehoods but ignores the most recent exculpatory revelations.” When creating true crime or biography entertainment in general, it is imperative to communicate with those involved in the real life story. Considering this, it is natural to wonder if the creators’ intentions were for financial gain rather than valuable commentary.
True crime is an immensely popular genre, with a survey by YouGov Today stating that over 50 percent of Americans consume true crime content. It is worth considering that a show like “Monsters,” taking into account both seasons, is a form of entertainment, and thus can be fairly read as exploitative of the stories of those involved. Profiting off of murder events — and in the case of “Dahmer,” the traumatized victims and their families — is not in the slightest an ethical practice. One must consider the “why” when a true crime series is created. That is, both why it was made and why it is being watched. “Monsters” appears as another instance of warping and contorting complex and indeterminate real life murder, and turning it into sensationalist entertainment.
The show plays out in an almost low-key environment where, in an attempt not to villainize any one perspective, it can fall flat in offering meaningful commentary. The dialogue between the brothers can feel shallow at times, with no other real purpose than humanizing the characters. The inclusion of incest appears to be bluntly contrived for entertainment’s sake, added purely as a shock-value ornament.
The factual and ethical concerns circle back to a key question of how and when it is acceptable to fictionalize real world events, particularly of this grim nature. When considering the mindless entertainment value of a series of this sort, lack of communication with those involved, and distortion of facts for shock value, the existence of “Monsters” may be unsettling to some. Lacking careful creation and critical consumption, “Monsters” feels glorifying at best, and grossly exploitative at worst.