With Netflix’s Don’t F ** k With Felines facing heavy criticism amid accusations it goes too far, is it time to reconsider the true-crime documentary as a whole? The record of what we know today as true-life crime is one that lengthens centuries into the past. As literacy increased among the working classes of Britain and etching became cheaper and more widespread, folders and short diaries published for sale on the street detailed assassinates and many crimes of the day.

Such literature was commonplace and well-read enough in the late 1800 s that contemporary documents and the Jack the Ripper assassinates remains available to read to this day. In 1827, the essayist Thomas De Quincey produced “On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts”, one of the first portions of literature to critique and satirize how culture imaged and downed genuine crime. For as long as it has existed, genuine crime has been critiqued.

RELATED: Netflix’s Don’t F ** k With “Cat-o-nine-tails” Documentary Does So Much Wrong

True crime literature remains a favorite with the public, from In Cold Blood to The Stranger Beside Me to I’ll Be Gone in the Dark, but its popularity has grown exponentially thanks to the powers of film, television, and podcasting. The past decade has been abundant in true-life crime thanks to NPR’s Serial, HBO’s The Jinx and Netflix’s Making a Murderer, to identify but three instances. True crime has always existed, but now it’s legitimate in a way it seldom was before. Furthermore, it’s cool. And therein lies the problem.

In numerous roads, Netflix’s Don’t F ** k With “Cat-o-nine-tails” is far more indicative of true-life crime’s history than the current crop of esteemed entitles that have manufactured the category critically admired. It’s a deliberately lurid serial that teeters along the leading edge of bad appetite and is far more interested in the criminal than the main victims. The three-part series burrows into the story of Luka Magnotta, a Canadian assassin who first piqued the interest of the internet and a variety of amateur investigators after affixing videos of himself online torturing and killing kittens. The documentary has faced heavy analysi for its approaching to a topic that remain awfully fresh for numerous people. As well as its questionable handling of a narration that is fresh in many judgments, including that of the victim’s family, Don’t F ** k With Felines has come under flame for the utilization of lengthy amounts of Magnotta’s own video footage documenting his acts of torture and murder.

Don’t F ** k With “Cat-o-nine-tails” is, unhappily, barely distinct in this regard. It’s not the first true crime film to splendor over images of violence and demise. It’s not even the first Netflix true-crime series to show footage that left gatherings outraged. 2018 ‘s series Evil Genius: The True Story of America’s Most Diabolical Bank Heist told the story of the murder of Brian Wells, a person forced to commit bank fraud before being killed by a collar device that had been locked around his throat. The line registers a brief but impossible-to-forget clip of Wells’ death as the rocket detonates.

What formed Don’t F ** k With “Cat-o-nine-tails” feel so misguided was its attempt to course-correct from exploitation to ethical grandstanding. It rendered into the most lurid and controversial aspects of the true crime genre, and then tried to chastise its public for being interested in such things. Whatever point the documentary wanted to make by requesting the see to consider how complicit they may have been in elevating Luka Magnotta to notoriety status precipitated dangerously short when coupled with how skittish the film-makers seemed to be with showing footage of his crimes, and rubbing his reputation as a criminal mastermind. By trying to prove how much better it was than all those other exploitative true-blue crime films, Don’t F ** k With “Cat-o-nine-tails” merely further exposed its many problems and reinforced the issues of the category as a whole.

RELATED: What Netflix’s Don’t F ** K With Feline Documentary Get Wrong About Canada

It’s tough to gauge if there is such a thing as genuine crime “going too far” when the entire genre is built on the essential of crossing those rows of modesty. Those Victorian-era chapbooks reporting the Jack the Ripper case included graphic sketches of his casualties. Most of the well-read true crime paperbacks of the 2oth century featured all-color photographs of death and decompose to gawk over. That doesn’t even get into the news coverage of such events, be it the burning of David Koresh’s Waco compound or the tracking hits of hundreds of dead bodies at Jonestown. Of route it’s sleazy: That’s sort of the point!

However, merely because this sort of voyeurism is embedded into the foundations of the genre, that doesn’t mean criticism of it is invalid or that there aren’t any strands that should be left uncrossed. This is truer than ever in the modern senility, when so much of this material is readily accessible online and spreads further and faster than ever before. The videos Magnotta released, for example, are still readily available online. Think of any major violent crime of the past century, and the fortunes are you can find video or idols from it in only a few minutes. Along with greater access to such material, publics are more aware than ever to seeing how emotionally provoking such things can be not only to sees but to those who were directly involved with the cases, such as the victims’ families.

Engaging with true-life crime has always presented ethical and moral impasses for the spectator, but now that the genre is “prestigious” thanks to documentaries on Netflix and HBO, there’s a sheen of worthiness to such tales that weren’t there before. True crime used to be the bastion of the tasteless, with inexpensive paperback books detailing monstrous crimes and all-night cable system marathons of Forensic Files. It’s not that the self-awareness of such trashiness excused true-life crime but at the very least it didn’t try to dress up a thing that everyone is knew was questionable as something respected. True crime is now shot like Peak TV – all glossy cinematography and stylistic flair. Podcasts like Serial and Dirty John create a sense of friendship with the listener, as if the hosts are your friends and they’re inviting you into this wild tale. When discussing the “ethical dilemma” of highbrow true crime, author Alice Bolin noted in Vulture that she often opted the purposely tasteless series over the acclaimed information that has come to dominate the category 😛 TAGEND

“I’m not saying I’m proud of it, but in its self-evident flops, I enjoy this label of true crime more straightforwardly than its voyeuristic, documentary equivalent, which, in its dignified appearance, has maybe only perfected a method of spawning us feel less gross about devouring real people’s pain for fun.”

Bolin gets at something that are still absurd to ignore about the egghead take on true crime that Netflix has become its documentary bread and butter: You can spawn true crime as stylish and prestigious as you want, but at the end of the day, that doesn’t make it any less exploitative than the stuff you visualize on Dateline.

RELATED: Don’t F* ck With “Cat-o-nine-tails” True Story: Missing Detail From The Luka Magnotta Case

Oft-overlooked in discussions of genuine crime is how the genre remains much more popular with women than with followers. As discuss issues of podcasts like My Favorite Murder, true-blue crime is a supportive conduit for women to explore ideas of vulnerability and the difficulties of living in a macrocosm where one’s gender leans you under continuing threat by civilization. It can be a way to process one’s own suspicions about misogyny and savagery, issues that are often tough to discuss with friends and family. This lens presents some major issues and makes a limiting scope on the conversation of crime and violence as a whole. These stories, by and large, focus on, as noted by Rachel Monroe, “attractive middle-class white women who’ve gone missing versus storeys about the people who are much more likely to suffer violence in our society.” The people most likely to suffer from violence and slaughter are black boys, women of color, faggot and trans parties, and fornication employees. They are, glaringly, seldom central to true-life crime narratives.

True crime may wrap itself in the robe of editorial integrity but the onus is still on them from systems and makes to create obliging narrations that will impede audiences fastened. This is a medium of presentation before it is one of journalism. Many of these films try to propose for their subject, such as Making a Murderer siding with Stephen Avery, but it still had to turn a ten-episode series into something compelling and twist-laden enough to encourage witness to click on the next fraction. There are serious issues to overcome when trying to mix advocacy with the compulsion to create the next enormou binge-watch. One major course this causes these real legends to suffer is that the focus fails more on types than wider systemic concerns. It’s easier to craft a grip narrative around one person and their storey rather than the decades of criminal, societal, and cultural context that procreated the system they were part of. It’s one of the reasons you attend road more documentaries about, say, the one somebody unjustly incarcerated rather than the decay of the justice system and for-profit industrial prison complex that hurts countless nameless people who are mostly pitch-black men.

Another major way this has impacted the genre is in how even the most prestige-driven films are willing to cross those paths of ethical stickiness, hence serials like Don’t F ** k With Cats evidencing portraits of kittens taped to broom handles before being drowned in a bathtub or Evil Genius showing the exact moment a soul died. Publics was not able to utterly desensitized to such idols but material like this will ensure that their proliferation in pop culture becomes more commonplace than ever, regardless of their ultimate necessity in the narrative( and personally, I would argue that you don’t need to see images of beings or animals dying to know that such acts are bad .)

Ultimately, true crime exists as it does because there is an greedy audience demand for it. True crime is no longer a shocking diversion to keep hidden from family and friends. It’s cool and prestigious and utterly everywhere. As long as witness and listeners restrain aria in, the new formula of egghead true-life crime will continue and narrators will rely ever more on those tropes that establish the genre’s ethical problems seem lesser thanks to the varnish of legality. True crime has always “gone too far” but it’s never felt more deserving than it has now, and therein lies the problem.

NEXT: Don’t F *** With Feline: 10 Trigger Warnings You Should Know

Read more: screenrant.com