Monster
Patty Jenkins

Nathalie Rothschild

Monster is based on the story of one of America's first female serial killers, Aileen Wuornos (played by Charlize Theron who also co-produced the film). Aileen, a lesbian hitchhiking hooker, was also the subject of Nick Broomfield's two documentaries Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992) and Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003).

Which of these films is more true, which remains faithful to its subject, which should we believe? The Hollywood version will certainly have a wider reach, especially after Theron's winning an Oscar for best actress, and the 'true story' label, in general, seems to hinder criticism. But does 'true story' really indicate 'truthful representation'?

The story in itself is thin, focusing on the unusual couple Aileen Wuornos and Selby Wall (Christina Ricci), and giving a few glimpses into Aileen's childhood as clues to why she ended up a disturbed individual and eventually turned into a monster. Poverty, unhappy childhood, dysfunctional family, and dubious sexual status all add up to a disturbed, easily swayed individual who, when shown a bit of affection, is prepared to murder in order for that affection to last.

Selby is shown in an unflattering light as a young, lazy, immature, naïve, manipulative girlfriend. Coming from a devout Christian family, being lesbian is not easy and Aileen becomes Selby's escape route, a source of adventure and of financial support.

By contrast to this gory drama, Broomfield's documentaries raise issues related to the death penalty and concerns about executing mad people. His films discuss the media circus surrounding high profile murder cases, including legal and illegal methods of gaining rights to stories for books and films, the result of which we can now witness in Monster. Broomfield also gives us insights into Aileen's past, giving her and people around her the chance to speak out. In so doing, he enters a personal dilemma vis-à-vis Aileen on whether to pursue his story or hers. Placing himself, his voice, his image and his interventions within the story, he also makes us think of responsibilities and ethics in film making.

In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, the director is baffled at the realisation that Aileen has changed her story and wishes to cleanse her soul by admitting that she had not acted in self-defence when murdering seven of her 'clients'. She refuses to go into any detail about the murders, but wants to use Broomfield and his camera as sources to disclose the manipulative methods of Hollywood, of the media circus in general and of the cops who she believes are part of it. Monster seems to follow the line of Aileen's confessions in Broomfield's second film. Here, only one of the murders can be interpreted as being committed in self defence. In all other cases, the men do not directly threaten Aileen's life.

In Monster, however, it seems as if everyone is a victim. Aileen is a victim of circumstances, of childhood abuse and of bad parenting - can she help but become a monster? Selby is a victim of lack of parental and societal understanding, intolerance and a restrictive upbringing. The men become victims of the prostitute they pick up and as a consequence their families suffer as well. What is not conveyed, however, is how Aileen became the victim of media obsession and police corruption, how this film would have been her final slap in the face had her execution not already taken place. The film makes it hard to judge and point fingers. In fact, it makes it hard to think at all because none of these issues is dwelled upon, none brought up to their complexities. Instead, it shows two lesbian misfits escaping from their existences and it fails to invoke any sense of female bonding or victory over male domination. Aileen and Selby are like the failed Thelma and Louise.