I've seen every documentary on Dahmer (that I'm aware of) and personally, I thought Evan Peters' acting was superb. Doesn't make much sense to me that people are outraged because he didn't mention the victims. WTF. Acting is his job. His career. He won an award for doing a good job. I doubt few, if any, of the "public," especially those who watched the documentary could even name the victims.
I don't think anyone is arguing Peters' acting chops--it's his being connected with a controversial project.
From the outset, just months after Dahmer was arrested, there have been lawsuits filed by family members--especially after his father released his book A Father's Story. (I'd imagine you're aware of this from the documentaries you've watched.) Other lawsuits continued, some that attempted to confiscate the $25.00 he made each month working in the prison--to distribute those monies to his victims' families.
What's different now is the argument that the series itself should never have been created, to spare the victims' families from reliving memories, grief, etc. Although this is a bit like saying Gone With the Wind shouldn't have been filmed because of the memories it dredged up for those who lost loved ones in the war. That might read like a false dichotomy, but only slightly.
What prompted you to watch and gather so much info on Dahmer? Have you done the same with other serial killers?
Thank you for the response. I do see both sides of the debate and I understand that families do not want their tragedies regurgitated or profited from. My thoughts were - this is not the first Dahmer movie/series and is there really anything, financial or otherwise that will compensate these families for their loss? I can't imagine there is. For example, Dahmer was killed. The building was torn down. Lawsuits were won. Has their loss been mitigated?
I've always been interested in crime (way before it was popular) starting with the old Detective magazines I began reading at age 9. Human behavior intrigues me. So, yes, I've read, watched, researched crimes and criminals. Serial killers included. I've always understood that people are capable of anything. We all are.
I'm quoted above as saying "“Dahmer’s victims are beside the point," which sounds heartless and irresponsible. It needs context:
Nobody wants to be remembered as a data point in a series of murders. The story that captures the imagination is the story of the killer. Why, how, and his ability to elude capture.
In such tales of off-kilter minds there is always a fascination that turns on what if it were us. What if we were the killer. What if we met the killer. It is not in the deaths of his victim's that we can understand an extreme of human nature like Dahmer, but in his twisting journey to become an obsessional killer ... or is it, a tale not of becoming but of manifesting what was always there?
In Dahmer, we are confronted with the reality of evil. Evil is a term burdened with a religious glaze. This is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Evil, as this piece suggests, is something real and innate. We need no psychobabble to wish it away, no futile fretting over an unfortunate childhood, as if had only this happened instead of that Jeffrey Dalmer would be a fulfilled man. There is something feral about evil, embedded in the primitive mind bereft of tribal allegiance to the human condition and the evolved morality of living with others.
Evil, and the way it confounds us, is the fascination that looms over our interest in transgressive figures like Dahmer. And in this contemplation, the victims are merely the data points, not the pivot points, of the story.
100% agree with all of this. Evan Peter's virtually chanelled Dahmer in that show. As John says in the comment below- the facination is all about the What If, the How, and the unbelievability of it. Great post.
Thank you, Susan. I'll look forward to hearing any other comments you might share re my book project. We seem to be writing along similar vectors. I'm following your SS now.
I've seen every documentary on Dahmer (that I'm aware of) and personally, I thought Evan Peters' acting was superb. Doesn't make much sense to me that people are outraged because he didn't mention the victims. WTF. Acting is his job. His career. He won an award for doing a good job. I doubt few, if any, of the "public," especially those who watched the documentary could even name the victims.
I don't think anyone is arguing Peters' acting chops--it's his being connected with a controversial project.
From the outset, just months after Dahmer was arrested, there have been lawsuits filed by family members--especially after his father released his book A Father's Story. (I'd imagine you're aware of this from the documentaries you've watched.) Other lawsuits continued, some that attempted to confiscate the $25.00 he made each month working in the prison--to distribute those monies to his victims' families.
What's different now is the argument that the series itself should never have been created, to spare the victims' families from reliving memories, grief, etc. Although this is a bit like saying Gone With the Wind shouldn't have been filmed because of the memories it dredged up for those who lost loved ones in the war. That might read like a false dichotomy, but only slightly.
What prompted you to watch and gather so much info on Dahmer? Have you done the same with other serial killers?
Thank you for the response. I do see both sides of the debate and I understand that families do not want their tragedies regurgitated or profited from. My thoughts were - this is not the first Dahmer movie/series and is there really anything, financial or otherwise that will compensate these families for their loss? I can't imagine there is. For example, Dahmer was killed. The building was torn down. Lawsuits were won. Has their loss been mitigated?
I've always been interested in crime (way before it was popular) starting with the old Detective magazines I began reading at age 9. Human behavior intrigues me. So, yes, I've read, watched, researched crimes and criminals. Serial killers included. I've always understood that people are capable of anything. We all are.
I'm quoted above as saying "“Dahmer’s victims are beside the point," which sounds heartless and irresponsible. It needs context:
Nobody wants to be remembered as a data point in a series of murders. The story that captures the imagination is the story of the killer. Why, how, and his ability to elude capture.
In such tales of off-kilter minds there is always a fascination that turns on what if it were us. What if we were the killer. What if we met the killer. It is not in the deaths of his victim's that we can understand an extreme of human nature like Dahmer, but in his twisting journey to become an obsessional killer ... or is it, a tale not of becoming but of manifesting what was always there?
In Dahmer, we are confronted with the reality of evil. Evil is a term burdened with a religious glaze. This is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Evil, as this piece suggests, is something real and innate. We need no psychobabble to wish it away, no futile fretting over an unfortunate childhood, as if had only this happened instead of that Jeffrey Dalmer would be a fulfilled man. There is something feral about evil, embedded in the primitive mind bereft of tribal allegiance to the human condition and the evolved morality of living with others.
Evil, and the way it confounds us, is the fascination that looms over our interest in transgressive figures like Dahmer. And in this contemplation, the victims are merely the data points, not the pivot points, of the story.
100% agree with all of this. Evan Peter's virtually chanelled Dahmer in that show. As John says in the comment below- the facination is all about the What If, the How, and the unbelievability of it. Great post.
Thank you, Susan. I'll look forward to hearing any other comments you might share re my book project. We seem to be writing along similar vectors. I'm following your SS now.
I'm looking forward to digging into your project. Great to e-meet you.