When Critics Get Carried Away by a Crime Scene

The latest installment of Ryan Murphy’s “Monster” anthology series has taken its lumps from both critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. But is this backlash about the show itself, or something more? The reception for “Lizzie Borden Story” follows a familiar pattern: creators get praised for tackling tough subjects, but then lambasted by those same critics when they can’t live up to lofty expectations.

True-crime anthologies have become a staple of modern entertainment. Each new season draws in audiences and critics alike with the promise of exploring real-life atrocities through dramatization. It’s no surprise that “Monster” has become a lightning rod for both praise and criticism. However, where do we draw the line between honest critique and knee-jerk reaction?

The Anatomy of a Backlash

Looking back at previous seasons of “Monster,” it’s clear that critics are more willing to give creators a free pass when they’re tackling difficult subjects, even if the execution is imperfect. For example, Murphy’s “Hollywood” series received praise for its ambition, despite some missteps in storytelling and character development. However, when “Lizzie Borden Story” fails to meet these expectations, it seems as though critics are eager to wield their critical axes.

This raises questions about the role of true-crime storytelling in our culture. Are we more interested in exploring the darker corners of human nature because it’s cathartic, or because it allows us to feel superior to those who commit crimes? By extension, do we hold creators accountable for accurately representing these stories, or do we simply expect them to deliver a sensationalized version of events?

The Lizzie Borden Legend Lives On

Critics have taken issue with Murphy’s portrayal of Lizzie Borden herself. For those unfamiliar with the story, Borden was accused of murdering her parents in 1892, sparking widespread public fascination and debate about her guilt or innocence. Some argue that Murphy’s take romanticizes Borden’s role in the murders, perpetuating a tired trope: that of the sympathetic female killer.

However, this reading overlooks the nuances of the show’s portrayal. By humanizing Lizzie Borden, Murphy and his team are actually highlighting the societal pressures that drove her to commit such heinous crimes. This is not about making excuses for Borden’s actions but rather about understanding the complex web of factors that led up to them.

The Netflix Effect

The true-crime genre has become a cash cow for streaming services like Netflix, with many creators trying their hand at adapting these stories for television. While this can lead to some compelling content, it also raises questions about creative ownership and the commercialization of true crime. When does a show like “Monster” stop being an artful exploration of the human condition and start feeling more like a cynical cash grab?

This concern is particularly relevant given Netflix’s track record with true-crime series. Some have argued that the platform’s emphasis on sensationalism over substance has contributed to a culture of clickbait headlines and shallow reporting. By extension, do we hold creators accountable for contributing to this culture, or are they simply playing by the rules laid out by their employers?

The Real Monster

In the end, it’s not about whether “Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story” lives up to expectations; it’s about what that expectation says about our collective psyche. We’re drawn to true-crime stories because they provide a safe space for us to confront and process our own darker impulses. But by romanticizing or sensationalizing these crimes, are we inadvertently perpetuating the same societal ills that drove them in the first place?

As we continue to devour true-crime content on platforms like Netflix, it’s worth considering what this says about our values as a society. Do we prioritize entertainment over education? Sensationalism over substance? Or do we have the capacity to engage with these stories in a more nuanced way? The answer lies not in how well “Monster” is received but in how we choose to respond to its portrayal of the darker corners of human nature.