The Elusiveness of the Serial Killer Biopic

Introduction

Everyone loves the biopic. These films are as formulaic as the typical action movie, yet tailor-made for awards season. Even mediocre actors can get critical acclaim for their “daring” performance of doing an impression of someone everybody knows.

Precious few biopics manage to delve deeply into their subjects or offer something new to the genre (Control about Ian Curtis, Nixon about Richard Nixon, and I'm Not There about Bob Dylan are some rare, noteworthy films). Instead, most biopics are the equivalent of a “greatest hits” album, giving little insight into the subject or his/her impact on culture (yes, I'm including Ray and Walk The Line).

Probably since the 1930s, if not earlier, crime dramas have served as one of the preeminent genres in cinema. From gangster films (Little Caesar, Manhattan Melodrama) to film noir (Double Indemnity, Kiss Me Deadly) to cops-that-don't play by the rules (The French Connection, Dirty Harry) to the criminals themselves (The Godfather, Pulp Fiction), crime remains a prevalent subject for films all around the world.

Very few can deny the public's fascination with serial killers. 1952's remarkably prescient The Sniper probably represents the first film with an understanding of the psychological make-up of the serial killer. Since then, fictional books, movies, and television series (Peeping Tom, Natural Born Killers, American Psycho, The Killer Inside Me, Dexter) all feature serial killer protagonists and a number of true crime shows devote themselves to the study of the breed.

There is also the classic cop-chases-serial-killer films ranging in quality from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and David Fincher's Seven to those terrible Morgan Freeman Alex Cross Mysteries, Kiss the Girls and Along Came A Spider.

The question then becomes, why are there practically no biopics/based-on-a-true-story films about serial killers? It seems a given considering the above factors, but “true” serial killer films are surprisingly rare.

The Acclaimed Films

The two most critically acclaimed real life “serial killer” films are probably 2003's Monster and 2007's Zodiac, but neither of those movies were actually a serial killer biopic.

Monster, the 2003 film about Aileen Wuornos, purports to be about the rare female serial killer. However, it runs into two problems: 1) it is too Oscar-baity (and won the film's star Charlize Theron an Oscar as “really hot chick uglied up”) and 2) Aileen does not come across as a serial killer. In the film, Aileen seems less driven by the compulsion that defines serial killers and more because she's a man-hater, angry with men who won't hire her for jobs that she's dangerously unqualified for.

The focus of David Fincher's Zodiac was not the serial killer himself, but the people investigating the crime. This is understandable, as The Zodiac Killer's identity remains a mystery to this day. Zodiac works as a true story/procedural about catching a serial killer, but is not a movie about the serial killer himself.

Similarly, Spike Lee's Summer of Sam concentrated on a group of people living in New York during the time of the Son of Sam killings. While David Berkowitz was a character in the film (complete with hilarious talking dog sequence),

he was merely incidental to the story of Adrian Brody and John Leguizamo's characters.

Based On A Real Serial Killer

While some real life serial killers inspire real films (e.g. The Zodiac Killer inspiring Dirty Harry, Ed Gein inspiring Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.), a number of films are actually based on an actual killer.

1986's remarkably brutal and terrific Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, featuring Michael Rooker as “Henry,” begins with a title card explaining that it's based on, but not meant to be a factual account of, the exploits of Henry Lee Lucas- America's most prolific serial killer, with over 600 claimed murders. Also in the film is Ottis, based on Henry's real life partner-in-crime Ottis Toole. Although H:POASK is commonly classified as a “horror” movie, the film and the performances contain a grittiness and intensity that few movies of any genre manage to obtain. All things considered, H:POASK would probably rank as the best “real” serial killer movie.

Years earlier, in 1968, Tony Curtis starred in The Boston Strangler, about The Boston Strangler (Albert DeSalvo) who terrorized Massachusetts in the early 1960s. Although the movie took more than a few liberties with the story (especially the fate of DeSalvo), the film was clearly a professional production. Backed by Twentieth Century Fox and with decent performances by Curtis, Henry Fonda, and George Kennedy, The Boston Strangler provides a much better-than-average example of the typical “real” serial killer movie.

Based On Other Source Material

In other instances, authors fictionalize the life of a serial killer, and then that account becomes a film.

2001's From Hell (starring Johnny Depp and Heather Graham) about Jack the Ripper is an adaptation of a graphic novel and not actually about the Whitechapel Murderer. Saying that From Hell is a Jack the Ripper movie would be like saying that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen constitutes Tom Sawyer: The Motion Picture.

Similarly, Leonardo DiCaprio announced plans to star in the feature film version of Erik Larson's The Devil in the White City. The movie will be based on the best-selling novel about America's first serial killer (H.H. Holmes), but not about the serial killer himself. See also: The Black Dahlia, being about the Elmore Leonard book and not the actual case.

Charlie Manson

Arguably America's best-known killer (despite not actually being a serial killer or physically participating in the murders he is most famous for), Charlie Manson never received an actual biopic. Manson Movies (and Manson TV-Movies) concentrate exclusively on the Vincent Bugliosi book Helter Skelter. While The Manson Family, the Tate/La Bianca murders, and the subsequent trial are important to the story of Charles Manson, the tale of the former singer/racial leader has a lot more untapped depth.

Recently, True Blood's Ryan Kwanten was cast as Charlie Manson in a The Family, a new movie that alleges to be more about The Family and its leader as opposed to the murders and trial.

The Crap

There are a number of famous serial killer “biopics” (a term I use very loosely), but they are low budget, poorly done, straight-to-video horror films. The type you'd expect to see available on FearNET, complete with a stupid joke to end the synopsis. Because of these films' positioning as schlock slasher fare, one should not be surprised that the filmmakers don't bother to delve into the motivations of these icons; the blatant inaccuracies make it clear that the filmmakers merely wanted to trade on name recognition.

Some of the most notable and infamous serial killers in American history received this treatment including homosexual cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer in 2002's Dahmer (starring Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner); gentleman killer Ted Bundy in 2002's Ted Bundy; Wisconsin weirdo Ed Gein in 2000's Ed Gein; and killer clown John Wayne Gacy in 2003's Gacy.

Conclusion

In addition to those mentioned above, names like Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez, Albert “The Grey Man” Fish, and Joel “The Seinfeld Reference” Rifkin remain part of the popular crime culture landscape years after these killers finished their deeds, yet none of them have had their stories told cinematically. It's not as though Hollywood has an aversion to “real life” crime films, with a history ranging from before 1967's Bonnie and Clyde to after 2009's Public Enemies. And, as repeated ad nauseum over this post, the serial killer is not a rare topic for filmmakers to tackle.

The question therefore isn't why hasn't a serial killer biopic succeeded, but why hasn't it been tried in the first place?