For this analysis, I have chosen the show Mindhunter. I chose this because it seemed interesting and I'd never seen it before. I had never heard of the show and only knew what I read from the bio, so I'd be going into it with a clear mind. Also, since it's about the psychology of serial killers I thought it might have some various social issues to discuss. I thought I would just analyze Episode 1, but after enjoying that episode I went ahead and watched the second one as well. I wasn't disappointed.
Basically, the show revolves around an FBI agent, Holder, in the 1970's. He is trying to connect the FBI with newfound knowledge in psychology. At this point in time people are beginning to question the mind of serial killers and see if there are any indicators that could be predicted. However, in his attempt to bring these two fields together he encounters quite a few problems. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are reluctant to learn about psychology, especially about the psychology of serial killers. They view the killers as animal in nature and not human. They believe that the killers are born this way.
This brings out one of the main social issues the show deals with so far. People are reluctant to see these killers as people. Killers are often demonized in the media; they gain popularity only for the awful acts they've committed. They are presented to be cold blooded killers or blood thirsty animals. Law enforcement agencies, especially the people on the frontlines dealing with these cases, deal face to face with these violent crimes. They demonize killers as well because they see firsthand just what they're capable of. With this in mind, Holder comes in and suggests taking a look at the psychology of these killers- looking at their past, their behavior, and their attitude. This conflicts with the image people have in their minds of these killers.
This is particularly shown in Episode 2 where Holder goes to visit the "Co-Ed Killer" in jail. Holder sits down with a known violent killer and is surprised by the outcome. He seems polite and well maintained. Holder remarks to the Co-Ed Killer himself that he seems like a normal guy and that it's hard to pair him with the crimes he's committed. This scene embodies the dichotomy I described above. In our minds and in the media we completely demonize these killers, which in one sense is reasonable because the acts they committed are very violent and unacceptable. However, Holder sees the benefit in studying the psychology of these "animals". By studying the psychology of killers, you can understand more of why they act out in certain ways. You can recognize the different types of killers and psychopaths. In order to do that, though, Holder needs the recognition from the FBI that there is weight to this research. And furthermore, to do that he must convince them of the killers' personhood- something that proves very difficult to do even for himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory was a very confusing movie, it was hard to understand the true meaning of everything that...
-
The kitchen has long served as more than just a functional piece of the home, developing i...
-
Bad Match is a 2017 psychological thriller filled with a lot unexpected turns and shocking realities for millenials. The film st...
Kathleen:
ReplyDeleteI always found this interesting, ever since I was young I've been obsessed with crime shows. Each crime show takes on a different perspective of how detectives of investigators see the case. One of my favorites is Criminal Minds and much like Mindhunter they look inside the mind of the serial killer. In multiple episodes I have found myself feeling sad or pity for the serial killers because they show their backstory and what they went through in childhood or adulthood. Regardless, of how heinous their crimes are people are people and something must have happened to make them they way they are.
Alex:
ReplyDeleteThe psychology behind certain crimes is highly important. The classification of a crime speaks to its motives and impacts. For example, a mass killing is not the same as a spree killing, but to further classify the acts by motivation and mode of perpetration provides investigative, prosecutorial, and even legislative benefits when tackling violent crime. There are sub-classifications of serial killers, serial rapists, mass killers, and spree killers. Not all of these perpetrators think the same, target the same victims, or use the same methods. A one-size-fits-all approach is nonsensical. Edmund Kemper, the Co-Ed Killer was not a particularly intelligent, planned killer. Force and physical control dominate his MO. For contrast, take Ted Bundy. Totally different method of violence, highly intelligent and cunning, and was an expert manipulator. You can't apprehend or prosecute two killers that are so vastly different using identical methods. I feel many infamous murders, like the Black Dahlia or Zodiac, could have been resolved given modern psychoanalytic techniques.
Crime shows have a certain allure to them that just draws a lot of people in. In Bailey's example "Mindhunter" and Kathleen's example "Criminal Minds", both shows delve into minds of killers and convey to the audience how these individuals think. Like Bailey said, these killers tend to become dehumanized in the eyes of media and the individual, but generally if you passed on of these people on the street it would be near to impossible to tell that they are killers. I have personally never delved deep into psychology, but the knowledge that people could look one way and act or think entirely differently than expected is vitally important.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of this show, but I haven't really got around to watch it. From your description it seems like the show takes and runs with the concept of criminal atavism (in its own unique way); a concept coined and popularized by Italian criminologist/ physician Cesare Lambroso which postulates:someones likely hood to partake in criminal activity is predetermined by genetic anomalies that manifest themselves in their phenotype, that differentiates them from "normal" people (in this case people who don't commit crimes) Lambroso's theory is based around the idea that criminals are a reversion of sorts; a type of person who's physical features are reminiscent of early primates or "savages" and as thus are predisposed to behaving how early primates would behave in regards to respecting laws. The shows seems like a pretty interesting take on the general public and the FBI's reaction/treatment of serial killers, I'll definitely have to check it out.
ReplyDelete-Kenneth
Kendra ZeMenye:
ReplyDeleteI’ve never heard that show before, but the way you were describing was about how much criminals, serial killers, and psychopaths had been acting out differently. There are reasons why people became a criminal. Maybe it’s because they had a rough childhood, it's perhaps because they have been going through all the pain and suffering, or it’s because they want to take revenge. But they need to understand that they are no better than those citizens out there. Plus they are going to have to spend the rest of their life in jail, thinking about their action, which means they will have to live for all the charges they had caused.
Zach Helmstetter-
ReplyDeleteI rather enjoyed your analysis and the material it covered, however I had one concern. When you introduce us to your analysis we only get a small taste about what your show is even about and nothing to tell us why you are analyzing it. I would almost say your second paragraph with some tweaks would be a better introduction. It starts with what your blog is going to be about, has a decent thesis, and tells us the point of your post to build on what you wish to discuss.
Kyle Gardner:
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of this particular show before. However, I couldn't help but to draw connections between this show and one of my favorite movies of all time "The Silence of the Lambs". Holder very much reminded me of the main protagonist, Clarice Starling. Both protagonist seem to take an altered point of view about killers and what they have to offer to the general public. These two combat the normal stigma of "killers" and take a chance to gian knowledge about these people, possibly by psychoanalysis. If I could offer a suggestion, is to introduce your topic quicker in your introduction and avoid how you found it.
Overall, pretty good post!
I totally agree with the dehumanization that accompanies the connotation of killers in general. I too sometimes have fallen victim to thinking that killers are “less than humans” based on their actions. My personal opinion comes from the opinion that I have of how a death affects a multitude of people, not only the two or multiple people involved. In the same manner, I am also aware and believe in what Kendra said. I refuse to believe that there is a kid in the world that aspires to be a killer when they grow up. I believe that they are either products of their environment or there is some outside force influencing their mal behavior.
ReplyDelete-Kyra Moore
Hey Bailey!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I really liked your post here. It's a very precarious idea spawned from a very dark place. Kind of dangerous to think about rationally if you know what I mean, siding too much either way can net one a lot of trouble. On one hand, if you sympathize with serial killers too vehemently you (in a way) become a heartless monster. If you dare to understand and truly empathize with them then you risk becoming an extension of that evil - or at least (and arguably more importantly) appearing like you are. On the other hand, if you demonize them too vehemently you risk becoming a heartless monster, because at the end of the day these killers are indeed human beings. I guess it's a catch 22.
This is only slightly related but if you are interested in the macabre of human potential I recommend a show called "Most Evil". Basically, this old doctor dude has created a "scale of evil" in order to try and objectively rank acts of evil against each other. Basically, the show will introduce a handful of notorious serial killers, summarize their deeds, and then proceed to rank them according to the scale. It's honestly bizarre. But if you're interested in that kind of thing then I say check it out, you can find some low quality rips on youtube, you didn't hear it from me tho.
- You heard it from Brandon Ince
Lets face it! Randomly killing people is abnormal and should not be accepted as anything less than that! The fact that the studies observed the murders as animals is totally accurate! One can not commit an murder and have a right mind in parallel with it; especially if the murder is unjustifiable. There has to be some type of error in the brain that will allow someone to commit murder without some sort of emotion behind it. There is no way I can feel sympathetic for these type of people.
ReplyDelete-Rob D.
Lets face it! Randomly killing people is abnormal and should not be accepted as anything less than that! The fact that the studies observed the murders as animals is totally accurate! One can not commit an murder and have a right mind in parallel with it; especially if the murder is unjustifiable. There has to be some type of error in the brain that will allow someone to commit murder without some sort of emotion behind it. There is no way I can feel sympathetic for these type of people.
ReplyDelete-Rob D.