Awards show season is in full swing with the 2023 Gold Globes ceremony, actors and creatives in the craft of film and television buzzing in excitement and adoration for the beautiful art form to which they have dedicated their lives. And there were many moments that buzzed, that magically glowed in Hollywood’s brightest lights- from yet another Spielberg masterclass to Asian representation and dominance in the film scene for this year in cinema. But what seems to have gained the most buzz is the polarizing spectacle that is the Netflix series, ‘Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story’. 

 

Retelling the life and the atrocities of infamous American serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, the series and its cast managed to swoop an impressive total of four Golden Globe awards, including one Best Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture for TV to Evan Peters who plays the series’ titular character. But while the impressive aspects of the series such as its storytelling and its ability to delve into the inner workings of a twisted mind have received much talk and discussion, a deeper conversation is being held by differing opinions regarding the ethical standing of the show and its inherent connection to the sensationalization or fetishism of abhorrent individuals and their acts. And following its stellar showing in this year’s Golden Globes, the divide and tension between those who either defend or question the moral foundations of the show reached an all-time high.

 

Should the great acting and depiction of an evil individual be penalized? Most would reply with a definite no. In fact, twisted and corrupt individuals who actually existed are a mainstay in film and cinema- from the most ridiculous depictions of dictators and warmongers to the more terrifying portrayals of notorious serial killers, Hollywood has made them all come alive in films. Most argue that while this culture of portraying sinister people and events through commercial means may contribute to unwanted desensitization and a weird fetishism toward these subjects, the performance of an actor who plays these roles remains separate from the subject’s cruel history. It is easy to make the claim that acting is acting, it is meant to be separated from the realities of its inspirations, and as such should be judged on the merit of acting prowess and artistic performance alone.

 

But there are those who claim that acting can also harm and damage what’s once been harmed and damaged. One of these people is Shirley Hughes, the mother of Tony Hughes, a name that’s only ever remembered by most as yet another name in Dahmer’s long list of brutalized victims. Shirley remarks on the series’ success and recognition as another clear example of Hollywood’s obsession with “glorifying killers and their stories”. She also reportedly remarked that Evan Peters’ acceptance speech as having a concerning lack of respect for the families of the victims of Dahmer’s case, refuting Peters’ wishful thinking that something good and productive would bloom from the series that he stars in. While some people will take Shirley’s comments as overly-personal and without any objective guidance, it is irrefutable that people like Shirley, those who lost a bit of themselves due to Dahmer’s twisted desires, who should have the loudest voices and the most influential opinions on the dilemma at hand. Every new scene in every new episode in this category of media feels like a replay to them, living and remembering the gruesome fate of their loved ones. Every choreograped stab or strangulation, a nightmare from a few years back reemerging. Every Golden Globe and every other awards show won by the series, a night of silence as the world rages on about a man they will always see as a monster.

 

So how should the Dahmer series and its Golden Globes be regarded? Either answer it for yourself, or better yet, ask Shirley and let her tell her story.