Was Netflix’s “Dahmer” series needed? The answer is no

If you think of some of the most notorious killers in American history, names like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer come to the fore. Despite the fact that their actions have been recounted in the past, Netflix and Ryan Murphy have decided to recount these events once again in “Dahmer”, a suspenseful series that is undoubtedly not necessary wherever you see it.

Protagonist of several documentaries, and also of a film with Jeremy Renner in 2002, Jeffrey Dahmer was a rather repudiated killer and at the same time known for his heinous acts of cannibalism, murder and sexual abuse. His crimes committed between 1980 and 1990 were a scandal in the country’s media and television, which inevitably attracted hundreds of fans of morbidity and “true crime”.

From beforeMonster: The Story of Jeffrey Dahmer’ on netflixmuch has been said about the romanticization of the murderer, creating two totally opposite poles, those who say that history is made from the point of view of the murderer, and others who ensure that what they have had to go through has justice and dignity the 17 adults and men killed by Dahmer.

In an interview on the “Dahmer” story, Evan Peters states that he and series creator Ryan Murphy wanted to make sure the Netflix show’s story could never empathize with Dahmer. They wanted the story to be told not from their point of view, but from the point of view of the victims. Since then, many relatives of the people who died at Jeffrey’s hands have come out to blame Netflix for his release.

It’s clear that ‘Dahmer’ from Netflix was not necessary, for one simple reason, the pain of relatives. And is that, after the launch, the series became the biggest hit for a program on the streaming platform. Everyone was arguing about the story, about the protagonist’s repudiation or about the thousand ways in which they tried not to romanticize the killer.

During the 10 episodes of ‘Dahmer’, of about an hour each, the background and context that led Jeffrey Dahmer to commit atrocious acts are told. And I understand that it is a mistake of society, a person whose whole system around him has failed, and who want us to believe in our heads, repudiating him. And throughout the narrative it becomes almost unbearable to keep your eyes glued to the screen.

‘Dahmer’ is like Stockholm syndrome

Ryan Murphy, together with the directors of the episodes, Jennifer Lynch, Gregg Araki and Paris Barclay, configure the sequences, without many narrative frames, but where aesthetics take precedence over everything else. This means that no matter how many unpleasant moments are happening, they are not impossible to see, indeed, they are framed by a style that makes it very attractive to the eye.

Stockholm syndrome is a “psychological reaction in which the victim of a kidnapping develops an emotional bond” or feelings towards his kidnapper. The 10 episodes of ‘Dahmer’ are more or less like this, a series made so that, presumably, you don’t want to end, however, being there, seeing what’s going on, makes Dahmer the protagonist, not the villain.

Apart from its aesthetic or artistic value, ‘Dahmer’ was not really necessary, the story of its protagonist has been told hundreds of times, on YouTube there are thousands of data that have been omitted from the Netflix series, and this not to mention the complaints that the relatives of the victims have had about the representation of the crimes on the screen. On one of the most consumed platforms, at a time of greater visibility and when everyone has a say, Jeffrey Dahmer should be a figure buried in the past.