Netflix's new series, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, is stirring up quite the storm. This dramatization of the infamous Menendez brothers case is not only captivating audiences but is also provoking deep discussions about its accuracy and the broader societal themes it addresses. Since its premiere on September 19, 2024, the series has rapidly climbed the streaming charts, achieving over 12.3 million views within its first five days. But the more viewers tune in, the more controversy arises.
The show, created by Ryan Murphy, is part of his Monsters anthology series, which follows the success of another true crime hit, Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. While Dahmer managed to strike a chord with its portrayals—despite some criticisms of glamorizing the killer—Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story is facing much harsher scrutiny. Per Rotten Tomatoes, the Menendez story boasts only a 50% audience score and 46% from critics, compared to Dahmer's impressive 80% audience approval.
At its core, the series explores the complex lives of brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their affluent parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, back in 1989. Central to the narrative are themes of alleged abuse the brothers endured during their childhood at the hands of their parents. This traumatic upbringing, the show argues, may have driven the siblings to commit such heinous acts. But how accurately does the show reflect the true events and the actual characters involved?
A key point of contention is the portrayal of the brothers' relationship. Critics assert the series suggests an incestuous undertone to their bond, which Erik vehemently disputes. According to Erik Menendez himself, they have never had any sexual relationship, and this dramatization plays on harmful stereotypes perpetuated during their trial. He expressed concern over how the show misrepresents their traumatic history and suggested it feeds back negatively to the societal progress concerning male victims of sexual abuse. 'Is the truth not enough? Let the truth stand as the truth,' he lamented.
Adding another layer to this already tangled web is Dominick Dunne, the journalist character featured prominently throughout the series, played by Nathan Lane. Dunne, who covered the Menendez case extensively, had personal motivations informed by tragedy; his daughter, Dominique, was murdered by her abusive partner. Montez, surprisingly, intertwines Dunne's real-life story with the Menendez affair. While it seems relevant, various critics argue it blurs the line between fact and dramatic license.
Another glaring discrepancy lies within the events of the murder itself. The show depicts the brothers walking directly up to their father and shooting him. Yet, real-life accounts reveal he was actually shot from behind—suggesting he likely did not see who was attacking him. This oversimplified narrative raises questions about the show's commitment to historical accuracy versus drama.
Audiences have also been let down by the series' perceived pacing issues. Viewers have voiced their opinions online, with many stating the plot feels rushed at times or detracts from the emotional weight of the story's true nature. Critics have condemned the production for potentially minimizing the severe abuse claims the brothers made against their parents preceding the murders.
The show's representation of the trial itself also plays fast and loose with reality. Contrary to its depiction, Erik and Lyle weren't imprisoned together after their first arrest. Instead, they were housed separately, and their trials were conducted independently. Such alterations have made some viewers question what else could be merely creative liberties rather than factual recounting.
Despite the criticisms, it's important to note the performances of the cast, including Cooper Koch as Erik Menendez, Nicholas Alexander Chavez as Lyle Menendez, Javier Bardem as Jose Menendez, and Chloe Sevigny as Kitty Menendez, have received acclaim. Many viewers agree their portrayal brings depth to their characters, making the moral ambiguity surrounding the story particularly compelling. The film tackles misguided perceptions of the family unit, the nature of trauma, and the subsequent tragedies of each individual's choices.
Finally, the echo of media sensationalism resurfaces with this series. The Menendez brothers quickly became figures of fascination in America, and Dunne's writings at the time swayed public opinion, often skewing it against the brothers more than necessary. They seemed viewed more as monsters than as victims of their circumstances, and commentators fear this series might perpetuate the same narrative.
For now, as more viewers come to grips with the initial impact of Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, the discourse around inaccuracies and ethical storytelling continues to evolve. These conversations are valuable as they not only reflect society's interest but also demonstrate the complex, often contradictory nature of true crime media.