The subject of serial killers has always been a hot-topic in the media. The manner in which these mass-murderers were presented has undergone something of a transformation since the early years of television. The transformation started as a simple, factual news coverage of a shadowy monster. As time went on, the transformation progressed to more in-depth documentaries, and lastly, to fictionalized portrayals that seek to understand what occurs in the mind of a killer.
Though pre-1990s news coverage of murders often strictly presented the facts, other sources often provided interviews showcasing an entirely different take on a murderer. “Charles Whitman Sniping Spree,” news coverage of a tragic event in 1966, was presented by local news broadcast station, KTBC News. It covered the chaos that took over the area surrounding Austin, Texas when mass-murderer Charles Whitman shot 49 people.
This clip shows the lead of the story and live shots of gunfire, as well as the public panic that surrounded the camera crew. The information was presented stoically throughout the package. Though the cameras were present during the actual live shootings, the reporters show little emotion towards the events or the killer. This clip is significant because the coverage is journalistically oriented, and in fact shows scarce interest in the killer's motives. Naturally, there isn’t an abstract take on the inner psyche of a killer, as the news is supposed to be as direct as possible. This emotional distance greatly contrasts that of the 1961 program, Volcano Named White. Essentially, Volcano Named White, is narrated by the murderer himself, Don White. Though both the Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White reported factual information, the presence of the murderer narrating Volcano Named White showcased what led the killer to commit his crimes. Positive reactions from the audience were arguably garnered because they had the ability to understand Don White’s actions. Though Charles Whitman Sniping Spree and Volcano Named White both covered murderers, Volcano Named White was thought to be more thought-provoking because the coverage of killer was taken in an entirely different context.
Due to the public’s curiosity concerning the influx of serial killers in the 70s, many documentaries were created to unveil the monstrosities that people, many as seemingly commonplace as your neighbor, were capable of committing. While many documentaries were largely informative and spent time delving into the background and psyche of killers in order to determine the causality of their mental instability, the men were never truly regarded as human being, as they were often classified as monstrous.
This clip discusses many serial killers, including the Son of Sam killer, the Boston Strangler, John Wayne Gacy, and the “classic case” of Ted Bundy by showing intimate pictures of victims, weapons used in the crimes, and the serial killers themselves to create a more real, tactile world for the viewer. As the pictures are presented, a voiceover narration, along with dramatically eerie music, attempts to create a familiar foundation for the all-too-unusual killers as they are repeatedly regarded as “all normal looking…men” who are sometimes “soft-spoken [businessmen]” or even “married with two kids”. This commonness juxtaposed against the revelation of their heinous crimes is the premise on which the remainder of the documentary is based off—unidentifiable murderers. Despite the outlandishly unusual characteristics of these men, they are described as being “just like your next door neighbor…people you would not suspect”. And it is because of this that they are difficult to identify and, in turn, granted the opportunity to continue roaming the streets undetected; free to commit their crimes.
In documentaries, news coverage, and fictional series, the average program from the 50s to the 90s did not care to explain the why of crime, but rather the who and the how. For instance, ITV’s Jack the Ripper focuses the majority of its screen-time on the adventures of the lead detectives as they encounter grotesque crime-scenes and seek to unmask the killer. It cares less about the psyche of the Ripper and more about the outward devastation he causes. Starting from the mid-90s, more and more television focused on instead understanding in-depth the reasoning behind murders.
In this clip from Cracker, we see the central protagonist of the show, criminal psychologist named Fitz, confronting a suspect in a series of brutal murders. Unlike in shows popular in previous decades, Cracker focuses strongly on individual motivations for crime, and what would drive a person to commit murder. Documentaries on the subject of specific serial murderers often choose to focus on the crime itself, or the victims, instead of decoding the psyche of the criminal himself. In Cracker’s “To Be a Somebody,” the protagonist is chiefly able to solve the mystery of the murders through understanding what is going through the killer’s mind. Though the killer is portrayed as a dangerous character, and one certainly in the wrong, he is not unsympathetic. The audience can both condemn him for his senseless killings, and also understand why he did such a thing.
This is a stark contrast to the previous decades, wherein programs about killers depict their subject in shadows, or else as a crazed lunatic. The crux of the story is not who the killer is—the audience knows this from the start—but rather why he is a killer. This program heralds a shift from the simple portrayal of serial murderers on television as senseless monsters to a more nuanced depiction, one where the audience understands the driving force (even if monstrous).
As time goes on, the perplexities of what makes a serial killer become more and more intriguing to the common consumer. What started as simple news deliveries transformed into the complex documentaries and fictional characterizations that grace television today. Of course, each type of program can only portray murderers in a certain fashion. While the news can only report about the crime and its victims, documentaries have the ability to delve further into the inner workings of a killer, and dramatizations can bring new light to why mass murderers are who they are. Though it is interesting to see these different angles, it is important to understand what biases have affected the programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment