
The show Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story is based on the famous Beverly Hills in-house murder where Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents by opening fire at them in their house. The medium I am focusing on is the Netflix adaptation of this story, where they are showing the brothers having no remorse for their actions and effectively portraying them as monsters (the title of the show). From the start of the series till the end, the older brother Lyle Menendez seemed to be very dominating and aggressive, and it sets the whole tone of the show where they're trying to portray the actual victims as monsters. One of the media narratives during that time was that it was a pre-mediated plan to out their parents and gain inheritance as Jose Menendez, their father, was the CEO of an entertainment company and had built quite a luxurious life for himself and his family. This false portrayal demeans the long life of abuse of both the brothers at the hands of their father while their mother stood silent to all the atrocities happening in the family to protect their honor.
Throughout the whole show and the story in real life, a dark secret is kept from the courts till it is revealed that both brothers were sexually molested and raped by their father at an extremely young age. There are many false narratives shown in the show including the turbulent characters of the brothers and his false intentions of getting revenge on their parents. Specifically, how Lyle masterminded the entire scheme and dragged his younger brother into it as well. Their rude behavior towards their parents when they could actually not do much about it, and to them, they wanted whatever form of love they could get from their parents, due to which they withstood the abuse and did not reveal their darkest secrets just to protect their family honor. Them being greedy about the inheritance money and the narrative of them living their lives out with all the money however, they were the most miserable under that act. The way that this show portrays this case in this dramatized view reflects how the media dealt with this case when it was happening in real life. Television and tabloids helped turn this case from a trial into an entertainment spectacle.
Another major narrative of the show is that Lyle and Erik were involved in an incestuous relationship by portraying them as sexually attracted to each other, and to the point of trying to determine Erik’s sexuality that he’s either bisexual or gay by showing him with men outside and inside the prison. This is where the ethical responsibility of the media comes in when portraying real-life people and tragic stories. The media orchestrated the image of Erik in a specific villainous light so the people who were watching would start to look at Erik from the angle they wanted. The media has a responsibility to both the people they cover and the public and it failed in this story.
Ryan Murphy, the director, built a portrayal of dishonesty, especially for a case where male sexual abuse was not as common and not dealt with fairly in the 1980s. But he keeps on defending the portrayal as his responsibility to show all sides of the story and the perspectives of various stakeholders in this story. What the show does is present a very dramatic and sensationalized point of view of the abuse faced by the brothers at the hands of their father, so at times, it only uses this as a plot device and does not attempt to show the complexities attached to trauma and abuse.
What is seen now is that the portrayal of the Menendez brothers’ story in this drama has led to the public forming a different opinion of them than in the 1990s. whether we can say that people are more informed now or that they are more woke, the consensus seen on Instagram or TikTok is that the way these brothers were dealt with was very poor and that they deserve justice. When this case happened, abuse and sexual molestation of these brothers weren’t considered serious because they were men. There was a discriminating taboo against male sexual assault. The judge was very biased against them because of their gender and the frenzy of the media around the case. Now for that same media, their target audience and interpretation are surprisingly different. The focus was on the sole act of parricide, but today’s society is more well-informed. Conversations of men facing abuse and harassment have a somewhat open space. Their sympathy and support is overwhelming for the victim and their family. They see Erik and Lyle’s reform efforts in prison to make sure people with similar stories are not blindsided by healing. The impact is that the case has been repealed now and there is hope for parole after thirty-five years of imprisonment.
Your blog perfectly sums up the show and the struggle the Menendez brothers went through. I think media in general has a tendency to downplay emotional narratives around men, just like the portrayal of the boys’ abuse as greed. You’re right in pointing out Ryan Murphy’s role in the sensationalization of this case. It points to a bigger issue in cinema and film industry where creators often prioritize fame and profits over ethical considerations. Not only is this romanticizing trauma, but also goes to speak for how men who are already very hesitant to speak about their abuse due to societal stereotypes, may face an even bigger struggle with coming forward.
Moreover, I really like how you incorporated TikTok and…
The overarching theme of your blog that I feel is very important to recognize is that it highlights the importance of audience reception and response. The two-way relationship of influence between media products and audience is often left unnoticed. Your comparison of news media from the actual time of the case to the entertainment media’s portrayal of this case now stands out in this analysis. The stark contrast in the two can only possibly be attributed to the different characteristics of the audience then versus now.
“Meaning lies within the interpretation of the object by the subject”- this is a description that sociologist Robert N. Bellah brings forth. With regards to this, we can look at how the portrayal of…
Your analysis delves deeply into the nuanced portrayal of the Menendez brothers and the ethical responsibilities of media representation. You’ve highlighted how Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story dramatizes and even distorts aspects of the brothers’ experiences, downplaying the abuse they suffered while amplifying other sensationalized narratives. The parallel you drew between the show’s perspective and the real-life media circus of the 1980s adds a crucial layer, illustrating how both the show and original news coverage built them up as ‘monsters’ rather than complex individuals with their own trauma. Your point about Ryan Murphy’s defense of ‘showing all sides’ as a justification for this depiction raises interesting questions about where entertainment ends and responsibility begins in real-life adaptations. This is…
I disagree with the blog's point, that the it was the show's choice to depict the Menendez brothers as “monsters.” Watching the series, I noticed that it didn’t just paint the brothers in this dark light but also highlighted flaws across almost all characters—from their parents to the opposing counsel, who seemed disturbingly insensitive to the brothers’ history of abuse. Even the advertisements in California posed the question, “Are They Monsters?” which only amplified the overarching theme I took away from the series: a calculated push to get viewers questioning their humanity rather than understanding their trauma.
However, I agree with some points in the blog, particularly concerning Ryan Murphy’s directorial choices. Murphy has a reputation for infusing homoerotic elements…
I really liked and appreciated your views on the show. I wanted to add to your point of people being more aware on tiktok and instagram. Traditional media like coverage in the 90s as well as shows like Ryan Murphy’s often simplify and sensationalizes stories. Two young, rich kids are charged with murdering their parents out of a desire to inherit. Because it reaffirmed stereotypes about their wealth, entitlement, and the allegedly "cold-blooded" nature of their crime, this angle was alluring. For an audience that at the time did not fully understand the complexities surrounding male abuse and trauma, the story of "spoilt children turned killers" was an easy sell. Murphy's adaptation runs the risk of maintaining the same skewed…