I grew up on true crime television. While I was never allowed to watch horror films, which my mother was sure would influence my malleable mind, she never seemed to think that a steady diet of real-life murder could affect me negatively. I vividly remember watching America’s Most Wanted as a kid and having her lecture me afterward about all of the terrible things that could happen to me simply because I was a child, kidnapping being the most obvious, though murder was always there in the background, a constant possibility, post-kidnapping. She knew about the Adam Walsh murder, which happened the year I was born. She told me the gruesome details, emphasizing how easy it would be for me to be taken, just like him, if I drifted away from her in a grocery store.

As I got older, the true crime focus shifted: instead, she warned me about rape, about walking alone down a street, about never getting in the car with a strange man (and never, even if I knew them, with more than one man). Even still, when she calls, she warns me not to pick up hitchhikers, to never go walking alone, to always “watch my back.” Although I never accepted this type of paranoia at face value, I did take up her morbid interest in the complexities of crime — how victims were lured, how they were kept hidden, and how they died.

True crime is an overwhelmingly female genre. Both true crime books and television shows are primarily read and watched by women. Investigation Discovery, a Discovery channel offshoot that plays only true-crime and crime-related shows, is one of the most highly-rated channels with women 18 to 35. While both men and women watch serialized shows about crime in which anti-heroes break laws (Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, etc.), men are not avid true crime viewers. Although women are less likely to be victims of crime in general, the types of crimes that women are particularly vulnerable to—death from spousal abuse, rape, stalking, kidnapping, etc.–are often featured in ID channel programming. True crime often shows us the “Perfect Victim”: middle-class or at least working class, without a drug or drinking problem (or, if they did once have addiction issues, the drug and drinking problem is placed firmly in the past to create a narrative of redemption before a sad downfall). True crime carefully selects its victims for maximum sympathy with the white, female, middle class audience that eats up this type of programming.

A recent study in Social Psychological and Personality Research suggests that women enjoy true crime, specifically true crime that focuses on survival tactics, because they are afraid of being victims. I think this explanation is too simple, though it certainly is part of my mother’s interest. While she watches true crime to validate her view of reality as terrifying and full of people who are probably going to kill you, I watch because that divide between victim and perpetrator has never seemed terribly clear to me. Could the story have gone otherwise? What takes a crime from the thought to the action, and are all of us capable of that leap in the right circumstances?

Shows like Disappeared, Stalked, Solved, and Nightmare Next Door, all streaming on Netflix, provide an endless procession of true crime television that I half-watch while I grade papers or compose little poems, but Deadly Women is special: the existence of the show itself tells us that the important factor here is gender.

Deadly Women includes all of the hallmarks of true crime television: terrible re-enactments, true crime authors and professional profilers making stony proclamations about the monstrosity and/or evil of the perpetrators, and atmospheric musical cues telegraphing an upcoming horrific event. It’s a trashier-than-average true crime show, due to its lack of any real footage of significance, which tends to make it more campy than sobering. While Snapped and Solved and Wicked Attraction often show interviews with the victim’s family, photographs from the crime scene, and even archival evidence of interviews or video footage, Deadly Women is purely re-enactment, generally poorly done re-enactments (often, curiously, with actors and actresses who have Australian accents, even when they are supposed to be US Southerners or British), that depict horrific crimes in lurid and poorly executed detail. Each episode centers around a “type” of female crime, which gets recycled from season to season. Favorites include women who kill their husbands, women who kill for money, sadistic or mentally ill murderers, murdering nurses (often engaged in what they believe are “mercy killings”), or women who kill their children — a common episode that can appear up to twice per season.

Criminal profiler Candice DeLong provides colorful commentary about the women, usually labeling them as sociopaths, though we sometimes get a borderline personality disorder, Munchhausen by proxy, or postpartum depression thrown in, depending on the type of murder.

It makes for a decidedly strange viewing experience. Most true crime shows don’t really show the graphic stuff—you might see a bit of blood spray or an obscured body, the wounds digitized (very rarely), but otherwise the details are left to the imagination. Deadly Women uses all re-enactments. So, in Season Three, Episode Five, for example, “Pleasure From Pain,” which focuses on women who “kill for pleasure” (including the puzzling descriptor, “This is the deadly women’s house of sullen delight”), we are treated to a gruesome re-enactment of a torture-murder of a young woman by her meth-addicted roommate. The re-enactment involves the victim being hit in the back of the head with a frying pan, electrocuted with wires, and finally stabbed in the head with what appears to be a screwdriver. The low-quality, enthusiastic acting and sepia footage makes it feel like a scene from any exploitation film, but the presence of experts explaining the motivation behind this murder mean we are constantly confronted with the reality of the crime: this cheesy re-enactment is nothing compared to the actual suffering that the victim went through. And since the torture itself is so front-and-center, it’s hard to know exactly what the show wants us to take away from the whole thing. The victim is framed as a down-on-her luck addict who happened to come into contact with a sadistic, sociopathic killer, but almost all of the story emphasis is on the female murderer, her bloodthirsty nature, her lack of real motive. The victim is always and only a victim.

Most episodes are like this, the emphasis firmly on the perpetrator, often with mention of her evil, selfishness, or gold-digging (another popular theme), and the immediate events around the crime. Personal history, if any, is kept to a minimum. This tone in particular is popular for the “women who kill their children” episodes.

Such crimes are hard to comprehend, but I’m struck by how gender is so central. It isn’t the murders themselves that are so shocking; it’s the fact that they are done by women, who are meant to be loving, nurturing, and self-sacrificing. Women being anything otherwise is both fascinating (as evidenced by the morbid interest in the crime, in making the re-enactments as graphic as possible) and so frightening in its possibility that apparently the show needs to emphasize the “unnatural” nature of these women as much as possible, to batter the viewer into agreeing that yes, indeed, these women are monsters. They are not really like us. We would never kill our husbands or our children. The voice-over tells us this. The show descriptions tell us this. Candice DeLong tells us this. And this is another hallmark of true crime — the careful rhetoric of us vs. them, the evil and the good, the perpetrator and the victim.

But of course, Deadly Women has its cake and eats it too. If we want to see those crimes cataloged in detail, re-enacted and fully explicated by experts, does that mean we have a little piece of that unnatural, lawless, bloodthirsty nature, too? True crime doesn’t investigate that question, and part of the pleasure is the lack of self-critique of the genre. Like other heavily formulaic genres, such as slasher films, there’s something grimly satisfying about seeing a narrative play out based on established patterns. The difference is that Deadly Women ends not with the death of the victim or the capturing of the killer but with the viewer reminding herself that she is not like those others, those women who were too greedy, too selfish, too unloving, too unnatural.

TAGS: , , ,

LETITIA TRENT’s work has appeared in Sou'Wester, The Adirondack Review, The Denver Quarterly, The Black Warrior Review, and Fence, among others, and her essays on film regularly appear in the online film journal Bright Wall in a Dark Room. Her chapbooks include You aren't in this movie (dancing girl press) and Splice (Blue Hour Press). Her first full-length poetry collection, One Perfect Bird, is available from Sundress Publications. She was the 2010 winner of the Alumni Flash Writing Award from the Ohio State University's The Journal and has been awarded fellowships from The Vermont Studio Center and the MacDowell Colony.

2 responses to “Deadly Women and the Women Who Watch”

  1. Unsolved mysteries says:

    I prefer the too-simple explanation for why I like true crime shows. (Except Deadly Women. I’m not into that one.) But I also like when the show goes into the background of the perp., like they do on addiction shows (which I also like). I have always wondered why I like these types of shows–crime and addiction. I always thought my multiple close brushes with the former and foray into the latter made them fascinating from a but for the grace of go, there go I type of thing. Having looked into the abyss and stepped back, I’m still kind of drawn to it. Good article. No one I know is into these shows, so I thought I was a weirdo. Had no idea they were so popular with the 18-35 female set.

  2. Jonathan Ashworth says:

    Letitia Trent needs to get a life or at least take a chill pill. What a nasty disingenuous article, written by someone who says she only half watched the programme while she was writing poetry. Give me a break! What a snobby and snotty article, after reading this insufferable rant I’d hate to read her poetry. The article is full of inaccuracies and her casual off the cuff observations are unwarranted, untrue and pretentious in the extreme. No, people with Australian accents do not play British people and every other episode is not about women who kill their children but this is clearly Ms. Trent’s obsession. And for someone who only half watched an episode while writing poetry you have to admire how much detail she noted, and written with such anger, practically spitting venom, why? I found this entire review objectionable, unintelligent and pretentious and for her to remark about how she was struck by “gender being so central”, *duh* the clue is in the title, she has clearly missed the point of the whole show.
    The “terrible re-enactments” are actually well done with great attention to detail, especially the historical ones and the “cheesy acting” is certainly adequate and at times very good. What makes the show great however is the combination of Candice de Long’s observations from a profiler’s perspective and the insightful and clever narration by Lynneanne Zager.
    For Ms. Trent to write such a vicious and vile review when she has clearly got another agenda going on is revealing of itself. The disdainful tone throughout I find contemptible but the really low point is when she remarks, “The low-quality, enthusiastic acting and sepia footage makes it feel like a scene from any exploitation film”. Disgraceful. What is this anger about? I just don’t get it. I suggest letting all that anger and vitriol out in a poem, you can do it while half watching a TV programme that is of course totally beneath you. Wow, you are so high brow! Now let’s both of us take a deep breath and get over it, unless you are a deadly woman yourself of course….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *