I've never been a big fan of serial killer stories. I understand the appeal, from a procedural level. There's a lot of good, juicy stuff for the storyteller, as you dive into the killer's madness and concoct the scenarios that fit his madness.
The problem I have is that, from a classical sense, they're not good drama. There's all the buildup and suspense you could want, as your hero stalks the madman and tries to figure out not just what he's going to do next, but why he's doing it. But when you get to the resolution, far too often, the stories simply fall flat. There's no catharsis for the audience… no sense of "there but for the grace of god go I" (though, arguably, maybe there should be). Because ultimately, the reason "Why", the whole cathartic ending of the piece, is simply "Because". "Why did he do it?" "Because he's NUTS!"
You can relate, on a visceral level, to the person that kills out of jealousy, fear, greed, even malice. But when the reason he kills is simply "becuase he's insane," you (hopefully, of course) can only really relate on an intellectual level. It doesn't connect on a gut level, so you're left wanting.
(OK, so maybe all those "you's" above should be "Me" and "I", but you get the point. And that time I DID mean "you.")
I've been catching up with TV on the DVR and came across several examples of this in recent (i.e. the past season) TV shows.
What really got me thinking about this was watching the end of the "Taxi Cab Killer" CSY NY storyline (They get bonus points for not one, but TWO serial killer story lines this season — both equally unsatisfying.) This storyline ran for 3 episodes as we followed the investigation and its twists and turns, to finally resolve in an abandoned fire station with some lunatic on his knees, shouting about God's retribution. Perhaps it was all the buildup leading up to this moment (the weeks long chase, the false leads and surprise twists, the extended chase to track this guy down), but the resolution to the story couldn't have been less interesting to me. "Yeah, yeah, he's a religious nut-job. Big surprise. Cuff him and let's move on."
But there were shows that I think got it right. The first I saw was actually the later of the two, but it's one of our favorite shows, so we saw it before any of the others. In Bones, the serial killer was "Gormogon", a madman constructing a skeleton out of the bones of his victims, and the story had run through most of the season. Gormogon's apprentice, someone within the team's own ranks, is uncovered in the season finale, eventually leading to Gormogon ("the master") himself. But there were no histrionics here… no madman screaming out his reasons for his madness. It was all done in dumbshow, with Booth's voice-over explaining that the master was no-one, a madman lost in his own madness. Mercilessly (mercifully?), he was shot in the dumbshow, without ever getting a moment to launch into his screed.
The other show that "got it right" was the Manhunt episode of The Closer. This time the resolution was even simpler. Brenda's investigating a lead and finds that her lead IS the killer. Suddenly she's in the fight of her life and ends up putting several holes in him defending herself. We get his backstory and reasons why he killed (and why he was back after a long dormant period), but this is all done in the denouement where, arguably, it actually belongs. The real resolution to the story, the catharsis the audience is looking for (whether we acknowledge it or not), came five minutes earlier as Brenda is pumping the bastard full of bullets. (This puts it more in the realm of Silence of the Lambs, one of the few serial killer movies to also really get it right.)
No surprise to me that these two shows got it right… they're two of the most consistently interesting and entertaining shows I've been watching recently. But now at least I've got a couple more examples to point to, when next I go off on how unsatisfying the whole serial killer genre can be. Ah, what a relief.
The problem I have is that, from a classical sense, they're not good drama. There's all the buildup and suspense you could want, as your hero stalks the madman and tries to figure out not just what he's going to do next, but why he's doing it. But when you get to the resolution, far too often, the stories simply fall flat. There's no catharsis for the audience… no sense of "there but for the grace of god go I" (though, arguably, maybe there should be). Because ultimately, the reason "Why", the whole cathartic ending of the piece, is simply "Because". "Why did he do it?" "Because he's NUTS!"
You can relate, on a visceral level, to the person that kills out of jealousy, fear, greed, even malice. But when the reason he kills is simply "becuase he's insane," you (hopefully, of course) can only really relate on an intellectual level. It doesn't connect on a gut level, so you're left wanting.
(OK, so maybe all those "you's" above should be "Me" and "I", but you get the point. And that time I DID mean "you.")
I've been catching up with TV on the DVR and came across several examples of this in recent (i.e. the past season) TV shows.
What really got me thinking about this was watching the end of the "Taxi Cab Killer" CSY NY storyline (They get bonus points for not one, but TWO serial killer story lines this season — both equally unsatisfying.) This storyline ran for 3 episodes as we followed the investigation and its twists and turns, to finally resolve in an abandoned fire station with some lunatic on his knees, shouting about God's retribution. Perhaps it was all the buildup leading up to this moment (the weeks long chase, the false leads and surprise twists, the extended chase to track this guy down), but the resolution to the story couldn't have been less interesting to me. "Yeah, yeah, he's a religious nut-job. Big surprise. Cuff him and let's move on."
But there were shows that I think got it right. The first I saw was actually the later of the two, but it's one of our favorite shows, so we saw it before any of the others. In Bones, the serial killer was "Gormogon", a madman constructing a skeleton out of the bones of his victims, and the story had run through most of the season. Gormogon's apprentice, someone within the team's own ranks, is uncovered in the season finale, eventually leading to Gormogon ("the master") himself. But there were no histrionics here… no madman screaming out his reasons for his madness. It was all done in dumbshow, with Booth's voice-over explaining that the master was no-one, a madman lost in his own madness. Mercilessly (mercifully?), he was shot in the dumbshow, without ever getting a moment to launch into his screed.
The other show that "got it right" was the Manhunt episode of The Closer. This time the resolution was even simpler. Brenda's investigating a lead and finds that her lead IS the killer. Suddenly she's in the fight of her life and ends up putting several holes in him defending herself. We get his backstory and reasons why he killed (and why he was back after a long dormant period), but this is all done in the denouement where, arguably, it actually belongs. The real resolution to the story, the catharsis the audience is looking for (whether we acknowledge it or not), came five minutes earlier as Brenda is pumping the bastard full of bullets. (This puts it more in the realm of Silence of the Lambs, one of the few serial killer movies to also really get it right.)
No surprise to me that these two shows got it right… they're two of the most consistently interesting and entertaining shows I've been watching recently. But now at least I've got a couple more examples to point to, when next I go off on how unsatisfying the whole serial killer genre can be. Ah, what a relief.
Comments
Glad you mentioned SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. If you hadn't, I would have. I'd also mention SEVEN.
Really, what they all have in common is that the serial killer is a story-telling device. The story may be about catching that killer, but the killer himself is not the important part of the story.