Ryan Murphy made a new show! In the second installment of his true crime anthology, Monster (Monsters? Is it always with an ‘s’ now? Unclear), Murphy takes it upon himself to dissect the controversial case of the Menendez Brothers. It went about as well as his previous exploits into this sort of thing.
Perhaps Ryan Murphy should stick to fiction. American Horror Story, for about four seasons, was a fairly solid watch. Say what you want about Murphy: you cannot deny that he has curated a very particular visual aesthetic. The costuming, the soundtrack, the lighting, the uncomfortable angles: it is all identifiably Ryan Murphy.
The issue that has arisen with Murphy’s foray into putting true crime cases on screen lies in his handling of that which has made true crime so popular: the reality of it. Backlash surrounding his adaptation of the Menendez brothers’ story has hinged on ‘salacious’ elements, such as a certain shower scene, which gives the relationship between the brothers an oddly erotic angle. Besides being caught showering together, the brothers are also depicted dancing together at a house party, drawing suspicious looks from their guests. Did that happen? Did it not? Well, Erik Menendez himself spoke out against the “blatant lies rampant in the show.”
Ryan Murphy and the Menendez Case
Are Murphy and his team allowed creative license? Sure, but such classic ‘Murphyisms’ – that which is highly aestheticised and usually somewhat erotic – run into some trouble when they are involved in a commentary on the lives of real people.
Murphy explained the inclusion of incestuous elements in an interview with Vanity Fair. “I don’t think that the Menendez brothers had incest, personally, but there are people who say they did,” Murphy says. “[T]his was presented as evidence in court as a theory as to why these crimes might’ve happened.”
Murphy is covering his bases by including aspects of each possible viewpoint. This has been one of Murphy’s selling points for this season: that it does speak to various perspectives. And not without reason. The Menendez case is notoriously divisive. While nobody disputes that the brothers murdered their parents, the evidence presented in the brothers’ favor either prompted ridicule or sympathy. The difficulty had with the explanation for the crimes was clear in the result of the first trial: a hung jury.
Murphy is attempting to put the viewer in the position of a jury member. He throws everything at you. The perspective presented by the prosecution, as expressed by the Washington Post at the time, that the brothers were “spoiled, greedy sons intent on inheriting their parents’ multimillion-dollar estate”, and the perspective of the defence, that the brothers acted out of self-defence after years of abuse.
Yet, in trying to present all of these viewpoints, Murphy overplays his creative hand. The incestuous storyline feels as if it is included merely to shock. This angle feels redundant, however, when so much of the show – while still being based in fact, such as the recreation of the trial and the gruesome depiction of José and Kitty’s murder – is plenty shocking.
Murphy’s Priors: Dahmer
A look at Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story and the response it garnered at the time of its release might be useful.
After the show premiered on Netflix, Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey, one of Dahmer’s victims, penned an essay for Insider. Despite the fact that Isbell’s outburst in court is depicted, she wrote that she had not been contacted prior to the making of the show, adding: “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.”
A sense of entitlement accompanies Murphy’s attitude to the subjects of his newest instalment, too. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Murphy declared: “The Menendez brothers should be sending me flowers. They haven’t had so much attention in 30 years.”
However, Murphy isn’t entirely incorrect about this assumption. He adds: “[I]t’s gotten the attention of not only this country but all over the world. There’s sort of an outpouring of interest in their lives and in the case. I know for a fact that many people have offered to help them because of their interest in my show and what we did.”
“Netflix trying to get paid”
The attention generated by Murphy’s show has, in some part, contributed to the renewed interest in the Menendez case and the conversations arising around their resentencing and potential release. There are other factors at play, of course, such as new evidence prompting the initial plans for resentencing, which surfaced in 2023.
However ‘correct’ Murphy may be, it is still an unattractive approach to one’s source material, especially where real people are concerned. In her essay, Isbell raised another issue besides consent: money.
“That’s what this show is about: Netflix trying to get paid.” She wrote. Isbell further suggested that the show “wouldn’t feel so harsh and careless” if proceeds had been given “to the victim’s children.”
With this considered, it is hard to take Murphy’s feeling that the Menendez brothers and their family owe him some thanks. Murphy can argue that he has done the Menendez brothers a favor in his attempt to justify the creation of Monsters, but what good did the Dahmer series do besides open old wounds? It is incidental that the Menendez case is such that increased public attention could have a ‘positive’ effect. The brothers are still alive to reap the potential benefits, and they might be reunited with their family – what, then, if they had not been? Murphy is back at square one: adapting people’s stories for the profit of people remote from those still affected.
Ryan Murphy and Aesthetic Success
Credit where credit is due: Ryan Murphy did produce another Murphy Great – if you can view it as another part of his fictional canon.
As mentioned at the outset, Murphy rarely goes far wrong with his aesthetic choices. The casting and acting were pretty excellent. As ‘jokey’ as some of the scenes come across, Cooper Koch’s portrayal of Erik giving his testimony felt sincerely acted. The costuming gave a great feel for the period. The soundtrack has thoroughly taken over one’s TikTok ‘For You’ page (a Milli Vanilli renaissance – who would have thought?).
Regardless of backlash about the exact depiction of events, it has captured the imagination of younger audiences. There is particular interest in Nicholas Chavez, who portrays Lyle. A certain TikTok video has been dubbed ‘that one Nicholas Chavez edits,’ and it is, apparently, being used as motivation for exam season. The costuming also plays right into the current Gen-Z fixation on ‘Old Money Style’. The trappings of the Menendez story have hit the zeitgeist at just the right time, it seems.
Yet the beauty of the project feels like a sticking point, too. When Murphy cast Evan Peters (an actor he has long positioned as an attractive lead) as Jeffrey Dahmer, it raised questions as to what Murphy was trying to say about Dahmer. This is not an infraction particular to Murphy, of course. Zac Efron as Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile was another ‘um, maybe not?’ moment. While Efron and Peters are skilled actors, as are Chavez and Koch – and, of course, weren’t selected for the roles solely for their physical appearances – the beautification of horror is, at best, unethical.
The Problem with True Crime
When acknowledging the problem with glamorizing criminals, it is important to note that the Dahmer case is a great deal more ‘cut and dry’ than the Menendez case. Nobody, or very few, debates the status of his guilt, or if he should have been imprisoned at all, or how long for, or if extenuating circumstances in his life should have influenced his sentencing.
Conversely, the (current) leaning of public opinion toward the Menendez brothers is a tricky one. Sympathy for circumstance is balanced with avoidance of endorsement of their actions. Some believe that they have paid their dues, hence the continued push for an early release. Others are not convinced of the brothers’ explanation for their actions. While there is less wholesale condemnation of the Menendez brothers, Monsters still plays into the trend towards glamorizing criminals. The Menendez series is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last, nor is it the worst offender in the canon of true crime adaptations. The genre is getting old, however, and the problems with its consumption are increasingly recognised.
Verdict
This isn’t a question of whether or not the Menendez Brothers should receive a retrial. Or be released. Or if they were wrongfully incarcerated. That’s not my jurisdiction. It is a question of good faith and responsible handling of a story to which Murphy has chosen to add his own voice.
Chavez and Koch have displayed sympathy for those whose lives they are portraying. Albeit with differing degrees of openness, the actors involved are able to be sensitive to the factual element of the fiction. This is more than can be said for Murphy, whose entitlement to other people’s stories continues to land him in hot water.
Ryan Murphy is a creative. Of course, his factual material will be stylized. This is what he does best. Murphy has produced some good watches over the years; Monsters could have been one of them. His assuredness with his form partners is good, but it shifts into something more brazen and off-putting when you watch him parse situations that have not come from his own mind.
No, Ryan Murphy doesn’t seem to care about the backlash. Yes, he is already working on plans for season 3 of Monster (Ed Gein, by the way). Does his lack of caring suspend him from receiving criticism? Of course not, but it seems unlikely to change his attitude towards the ‘true’ element of the true crime cases he gets his hooks into.
