Fatal Fascination
An examination of the character of the serial killer and the
contemporary serial killer film
Dominique Pesch Date of completion: 29 June 2018
Master Film Studies Professional Track University of Amsterdam Supervisor: dr. Erik Laeven Second reader: dr. Gerwin van der Pol
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the contemporary fascination for the character of the serial killer in film. The serial killer is a beloved character in media and especially in cinema, exemplified by the long list of films starring this character. However, after 9/11 the serial killer film changed and went into different directions. As most research is done on the familiar ones like The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en, it is time to examine the position of the serial killer film nowadays. Especially since the rise of many series with this character, like Dexter, which could make the serial killer film superfluous. In order to research the contemporary fascination for the character of the serial killer, three films of the last ten years will be examined by combining a character analysis and a thematic analysis. Moreover, I will focus on to which extend the films used the conventions of the serial killer film and whether or not they confirm the developments in the genre as observed by scholars after 9/11. This thesis will state among other things that the serial killer film is still relevant since it is capable of adjusting to the present, thereby illustrating the dynamics of genre. It will also confirm some other developments other scholars already observed in the subgenre and argues that the morality of the serial killer becomes closer to the spectator.
Key words: serial killer film – genre – fascination – character engagement – society – Mr. Brooks – Untraceable – Solace
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction………4-6 Chapter 1: The serial killer film………6-14 The definition of the serial killer……… The roots and development of the serial killer film……… The conventions of the serial killer film………... Chapter 2: The fascinating serial killer………15-20 Fascination and character engagement………. Fascination with morally questionable characters, like the serial killer………. Chapter 3: Analysis………20-47 Analytical approach………... Mr. Brooks (2007)……….. Untraceable (2008)……… Solace (2015)………. Conclusion...48-51 Bibliography………..52-53 Appendix………..54
Introduction
Serial killing, a phenomenon which is compelling and frightening at the same time.
A phenomenon that appears in both reality and maybe even more in fiction, which makes it a very interesting topic. A phenomenon in which the name already seems to imply a certain relationship with media, but is also researched by multiple other fields such as psychology, sociology and biology. The latter fields aim to understand why people, mostly white middle aged men, would commit multiple murders, what the motives are to do so and what events in someone’s past could trigger that sort of behaviour. Often sexual motives are mentioned, but also others. Frequently, childhood traumas are blamed, however that is not always the case. Many research is done on a subject so rare in reality and which seem to occur mostly in the United States. Richard Dyer argues that serial killing is a crime of our age (Kill and Kill 146), starting with the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888 (Caputi 101).
However horrifying the serial killer may be in real life, he is a beloved character for the media and that is the field of research in which this thesis belongs, more specifically the field of film studies. The serial killer stars in a large variety of films and series, of which Silence of the Lambs (1991) and the series Dexter (2006-2013) are probably the most well-known examples. Due to the large number of films starring the serial killer, this character gained his own (sub) genre, the serial killer film, on which I will elaborate in chapter one.
More interesting than the question of how many serial killer films there are, is the question why it is so popular. Why are there so many films, series, documentaries and even merchandize and so called ‘murderabilia’ (Jarvis 327)? It seems that not only the serial killer has an insatiable desire, but also the public who wants to know more and more about the serial killer. It suggests there is some sort of collective fascination for the serial killer and this is precisely what triggered me to write this thesis. Therefore, chapter two will elaborate on the concept of fascination and how this could be applied to the character of the serial killer in film.
Like many others, I could not stop watching Dexter. Afterwards I asked myself why I generally liked him as a person, despite the killings. This made me wonder what is so compelling about the serial killer, and in this particular case, why did I engage with Dexter? A well-known theory about character engagement within film studies is the structure of sympathy by Murray Smith. This will be discussed, together with his and Jason Mittel’s work on engagement with antiheroes, in order to narrow down to the character of the serial killer.
The conventions and themes as mentioned in chapter one, Murray Smith’s structure of sympathy and the concepts mentioned by him and Jason Mitel will be used in the analyses of Mr. Brooks (2007), Untraceable (2008) and Solace (2015). The reason for analysing films from the last ten years is that after 9/11, the genre changed in order to be relevant, showing different tendencies, for example by creating a more sympathetic bond between the
spectator and the serial killer character (Simpson, Whither the serial killer 119-138). By analysing these films, using this method, I hope to find an answer to the question: Why are we fascinated by the character of the serial killer and how did changes over the past ten years in the subgenre of the serial killer film affect this fascination?
Moreover, Simpson argues that the genre is able to adjust itself to the cultural context (Whither the serial killer 122), which seems to be the case with these three films.
Additionally, I found these serial killer characters fascinating and I want to research how this fascination is achieved. Furthermore, these films all offer a different perspective. This could be interesting, since I argue that fascination for the serial killer character could best be examined by analysing two characters, the detective and the serial killer. These, together with the fact that the films are made in the past ten years, are the reasons that I have chosen them. By analysing films of the last ten years, I try to give an insight into how the
contemporary fascination for this character is established and to what extent the tendencies as mentioned by Simpson are indeed applicable to contemporary serial killer films and the development of the genre.
The reason why this research is relevant is because it focuses on contemporary serial killer films, while most research in the field has been done on the golden oldies like Silence of the Lambs (1991), Se7en (1995), Copycat (1995) and American Psycho (2000). Though there are some more contemporary examples examined, for instance the film Monster (2003). This film is based on the story of Aileen Wuornos, a female serial killer, and scholars compared the film with the documentaries made about her case. But even this film dated back to 2003. Also, there is a lot of research dedicated to Dexter (2006-2013).
However, this is a television series and not a film. This brings me to another point regarding the relevance of this thesis, which is the positioning of the serial killer film in today’s society. Since there seems to be a trend towards series starring this character, one might wonder if there is still room for the serial killer film.
Since the serial killer appears both in reality and fiction, scholars have for instance examined differences between documentaries and feature films, (The Aileen Wuornos case, mentioned above) or how the monstrosity of the serial killer is being conveyed in film (Hantke 2003). According to Hantke, the serial killer film deals with a representation problem, since the monstrosity of this character cannot be perceived by looking at his body. However, what Hantke states as a problem, could be in fact an element which contributes to the fascination
for the character of the serial killer. Other research conducted, for example regarding Dexter, has focused more on identification and spectator engagement with the serial killer.
To make it more specific, I will first, like mentioned before, elaborate on the (sub) genre of the serial killer film. This is the topic of chapter one, which will start with a
positioning of this thesis in the field, being a genre study. This is followed by a definition of a serial killer, the roots of the serial killer film and its development. This chapter ends with the conventions and themes of the serial killer film, which are labelled in order to use them later on in the analysis. In this chapter I will discuss the work of Steffen Hantke and Philip L. Simpson among others, since both have written about the serial killer in film. Particularly Simpson elaborates on contemporary tendencies in the genre.
With my thesis I would like to combine the discussions of representation, identification and character engagement with the notions of genre and fascination. In contrast to Hantke, I will focus less on the monstrosity, but discuss more broadly the compelling elements of the serial killer, which together with the monstrous elements contribute to the fascination for this character. By also using the structure of sympathy of Murray Smith to measure the level of engagement and the concepts as mentioned by him and Mittel, I think I acquire insight how the representation of the serial killer is affected by events from the past ten years and how filmmakers create fascination for this character nowadays.
Chapter two elaborates on the concept of fascination and character engagement. First an definition will be given of the concept of fascination, followed by an explanation of Murray Smith’s structure of sympathy and how the concept of fascination could be applied to this theory. I argue that fascination could best be examined by analysing two perspectives, the perspective of the one who tries to track the serial killer down and the perspective of the serial killer. Next, I will discuss engagement with antiheroes as mentioned by Jason Mittel and Murray Smith. This for the reason that antiheroes are often morally questionable characters, therefore relatable to the character of the serial killer. This chapter ends with an elaboration of literature regarding the character of the serial killer and by mentioning some tendencies in society of the past ten years, which could affect the contemporary serial killer film.
In chapter three the films Mr. Brooks (2007), Untraceable (2008) and Solace (2015) will be analysed. I will first examine how character engagement and fascination for the character of the serial killer is established. After that, I will analyse to what extent the films use the genre conventions as mentioned in chapter one. All the elements are labelled in the text by putting them between brackets, but they can also be found in the appendix. By combining all these elements, I aim to answer the question of how films of the last ten years deal with fascination for the serial killer. In the conclusion the results will be discussed and I will do some recommendations for further research.
Chapter 1 The serial killer film
Rick Altman argues that a successful genre is a balance between the interests of the audience and of the Hollywood studios (15), but this of course also applies to other studios. Steve Neale mentions among others the dynamic between society and genres, how genres got their labels and how genres evolve (45-66). Both authors state that genres are not static things and that it always involves a process of selection. Harmony Wu problematizes the notion of genre even further, thereby focusing on horror. She argues that the term “horror” alone is not sufficient to cover all the different tendencies within the genre, since the term primarily seems to refer to one particular time period. Moreover, Wu argues that by
perceiving genre as a coherent set of conventions, films which contain some horror aspects are not taken into consideration. She mentions scholars Peter Brooks and Linda Williams, thereby providing other ways how to look at genre and in particular at horror (1-10).
This has some implications which are important to keep in mind while reading this thesis. For example, how do you determine what a serial killer film is and what not? Since genres and their conventions change, it is not desirable to create a fixed definition and a fixed set of conventions, even though it might be possible. Therefore, the trends and conventions I will discuss in the following parts are relevant now, but maybe are not that important anymore in a couple of years. Furthermore, it is also relevant to acknowledge that by providing a set of conventions, a process of selection takes place. This means that films are included while others are excluded. I consider the films I have chosen for the analysis as serial killer films. However, since genre and its conventions are able to change, so does the list of films that fits into the genre. So in a couple of years, there might be other films which are a better match. But for now I would like to stick to Mr. Brooks, Untraceable and Solace as examples. That being said, I will now like to discuss the second important thing in order to elaborate on the genre of the serial killer film, namely the definition of a serial killer.
The definition of a serial killer
In order to discuss the serial killer film, it is first of all relevant to understand what exactly a serial killer is. It is however complicated to construct a suitable definition for this
phenomenon, illustrated by the many different definitions of scholars and legal definitions (Adjorlolo and Chan 486-491). For instance, Kevin D. Haggerty in Modern serial killers states
that “By convention, a serial killer is someone who has killed three or more people who were previously unknown to him. There must also be a ‘cooling off’ period between each
murder”(169). According to Cettl, there must also be a sexual element in order to be a serial killer. Since this element was absent in the early films, he argues that they technically were not serial killers. However, he states that these films did offer a model to which this
component would be added step by step (Cettl 5-6). Adjorlolo and Chan propose a different definition in order to determine whether someone is a serial killer or not: “(1) Two or more forensic linked murders with or without a revealed intention of committing additional murder, (2) the murders are committed as discrete event(s) by the same person(s) over a period of time, and (3) where the primary motive is personal gratification” (490). For the purpose of this thesis I would to like to use this definition, since I think this one is most suitable for film. One reason is that there are many films with multiple murders without the sexual component, or in which this component is not clearly conveyed. These films would be excluded by using Cettl’s definition. Moreover, the ‘cooling off’ period as mentioned by both Haggerty and Cettl is often not that evident in film. This is probably due to practical reasons, since it would extend the plot of the narrative and thus the screen duration if the killer needs a particular amount of time after each murder. The definition of Adjorlolo and Chan offers me the
possibility also to include films starring multiple murderers with other motives than the sexual one, as long as it is in the personal interest of the murderer, and in which the murders are represented as separate events.
The roots and development of the serial killer film
Simpson takes the late 1970’s or early 1980’s as starting point of the subgenre of the serial killer, since that was when the term “serial murder” was used for the first time (2000:14). Due to the increased violence in the USA after the murders of Kennedy and King, there was a need for other techniques regarding understanding and controlling crime in the mid-70’s. This resulted in the formation of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (Cettl 2003). It was FBI agent Robert Ressler who mentioned the term “serial”, making a reference to the serial cliffhangers on Saturday afternoon (Allué 2002; Cettl 2003). However, long before the 1970’s there were already films starring multiple murderers. Both Caputi and Cettl argue that the time of the contemporary serial killer started with the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888 (Caputi 1993, Cettl 2003). According to Richard Dyer, the first filmic representation of a serial killer was in Georges Méliès Barbe-Bleu of 1901 (Lethal 21). Cettl mentions films made during the interwar period with multiple murderers. These were The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919: d. Robert Weine), Nosferatu (1922: d. F.W. Murnau) Pandora’s Box (1928: d. G. W.
Pabst) and M (1931: d. Fritz Lang). These films were a response to the increased danger of serial killers, probably caused by George Grossmann, Fritz Haarmann and Peter Kurten who committed murders in Germany at that time (Cettl 6).
In the early films the serial killer was represented as a monster. This was often a vampire, particular in the films from the interwar period (except from M). This because the films were influenced by the real serial killers Fritz Haarmann and Peter Kurten, who literally drank the blood of their victims (Cettl 6-7). In his book Cettl describes the development of the serial killer’s appearance in film. Whereas in the beginning monstrosity and humanity were clearly separated by means of appearance or mental state, later on monster and human seem to be brought together, making the serial killer look as a “normal” human being (Cettl 5-30). According to Simpson, this development shows one of the multiple roots of serial killer film, which is the horror genre. This genre “ [...] depicts monsters for the purpose of
disturbing, unsettling, and disorienting its consumers, often for the seemingly paradoxical purpose of reinforcing community identity” (Psycho paths 9). He quotes Noel Carroll, who states that monsters in the horror story are determined as foul and dirty (as mentioned in Simpson, Psycho paths 10). Simpson argues that the serial killer could be seen as a monster, so belonging to horror like also stated by Harmony Wu (1-11), since he infects the moral surroundings with his lack of morality (Psycho paths 10).
Another genre which influenced the serial killer film is the detective noir(Simpson, Psycho paths 9). According to Anindita Dey, the detective narrative creates an underlying power conflict, while the world of the narrative has to deal with a crisis. This crisis is often caused by an power from the outside (Dey 878). Steffen Hantke relates the detective genre with the serial killer film by stating that the murderer in the detective narrative also appears as a “normal” human being, not having any bodily characteristics which would made him more suspicious than others(Monstrosity).
Interesting to see is how the serial killer film itself illustrates the flexibility of genres, how elements of different genres intertwine and create new sorts of narratives. Moreover, it also demonstrates the difficulties of genre theory, as explained earlier in this chapter, by the different qualifications scholars assign to the serial killer film. Is it a genre, or a subgenre? One could argue that since there are so many films centred around this character, which led to the emergence of certain conventions, the serial killer film reached the status of being a genre. Although it would be interesting to elaborate on it further, it is not the focus of this thesis. Therefore, I support Simpson and qualify the serial killer film as a subgenre of horror. This for the reason that in my opinion, the character of the serial killer mainly performs the function of a monster as assigned by the horror genre, as mentioned above. Now that I have positioned the serial killer film, I would like to elaborate further on how it became a popular subgenre and how it developed over time.
In the 1980’s, according to Cettl, a subculture emerged around the serial killer (25) and several serial killers gained a lot of publicity, like for instance Henry Lee Lucas. (Simpson 2010: 121). It was then that “reality tv” came up, covering true crime stories and one of its most beloved characters was the serial killer (Simpson, American scariest). Often these programs exaggerated the threat of serial killers, serving both interests of law
enforcement and the media, but it was mainly the latter which benefited since these
programs attracted a lot of viewers and did not so much lead to stricter regulation regarding violation (Simpson 2003).According to Simpson (2010), the peak of the serial killer film was in the 1990’s, with of course the success of The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and later also with Natural Born Killers (1994), Copycat (1995) and Se7en (1995).
However, in the introduction of the book American Horror Film: The genre at the Turn of the Millenium, Steffen Hantke describes a certain tendency seen in the American Horror film, namely that from the mid 1990’s and even the years from the first decade of the 21st century, the American horror film “has fallen into slump”(8), discussing the standpoints of academics, fans and critics. This ‘slump’ was illustrated by the many remakes, first of the Japanese horror, J-horror (9), and some remakes from other Asian countries. Later on Hollywood started to remake movies from its own country, taking films from the 1960 and 1970 and according to Hantke, even remakes of remakes were not ruled out (10-11). Hantke refutes that the occur of remakes, and also sequels and the import of films originally made abroad, is a sign of the genre in slump. On the contrary, he argues that “things have always been this way” (16). Interesting though is critic David Church’s comment that this decline of the genre seemed to start at the end of the 1980’s, that the genre from then onwards
constantly repeats itself ( as cited by Hantke, Introduction 8), and that in the 1990’s the main subgenre of horror is the neo-slasher, which is of course repetition to the max (8). Although one might argue that since the peak of the serial killer film and decline of the horror genre seemed to occur more or less simultaneously, the notion of repetition worked for the serial killer film. Unfortunately, even the serial killer film experienced a decline.
So how was the subgenre affected by this tendency? According to Simpson there was still a persistent flow of serial killer films, with often multiple serial killer films per year in the beginning of the 21 century (Whither). However, critics were not fond of the new serial killer films and even the public did not go to the cinema as often anymore to see the films. As mentioned before, whereas first, the serial killer was the evil monster, after 9/11 the serial killer was not enemy number one anymore. This was “the Middle Eastern Other” (Schmid, as mentioned by Simpson,122).
Nonetheless, the serial killer film proved that it is capable of adjusting to the present, producing “a marginal hold in the mainstream commercial marketplace while flourishing in lower-budget “niche” cinema or straight-to-video realm” (Simpson Whither, 121). But not only
the distribution methods of the genre are adjusted to the present, also the genre itself has changed. First from the early 1990’s till the late 1990’s, where a transition takes place in which films in the late 1990’s were more critical regarding the ideas of law-and-order of the 1980’s. After 9/11 the genre shows a tendency towards a more sympathetic connection between the character of the serial killer and the spectators (Simpson Whither,122-123). An example of this tendency is the series Dexter (2006-2013). Besides this, Simpson also describes other trends regarding the serial killer film. He argues for example that since the tension between investigator and serial killer seems to be an element that remains is in the genre, more “American giallo” (Worland, as quoted in Simpson 125) films will be made, often using the pattern of The Silence of the Lambs (125). Within this tendency Simpson discusses the films The Cell and Zodiac. Other trends are the transformation of the character of the serial killer from monster to hero, as exemplified by using the Hannibal films, the emergences of the so called “biopics”(134), films which over-colour the lives of real life serial killers and the overall trend of the genre is the taming of the serial killer, making him more civilized (Whither).
The conventions of the serial killer film
According to Simpson (Whither), it is a dynamic genre and its conventions are able to adapt themselves to varying periods of time and historical situations (122). Robert Cettl discusses in his Serial Killer Cinema the conventions of the serial killer film, which are according to him eighteen in total. He mentions that not all of them might be present in the films discussed in the following section of his book and that the conventions not need to appear in the order he presented. I will briefly discuss the conventions. These are numbered, following the order as presented by Cettl, and after each convention I will put a label between brackets. This for the reason that I will use Cettl’s conventions in the analysis. But before I elaborate on them, it is important to acknowledge that Cettl’s book dates back to 2003. Therefore, not all
conventions as listed by him might be that relevant anymore. Neither are all eighteen conventions essential in order to label a film as a serial killer film.
So according to Cettl, the serial killer film contains the following conventions:
1. The result of murder (>Murder Aftermath<)
2. A scene at the crime scene, or dumpsite, with an almost entirely naked female body (>Crime scene with Female Body<)
3. A confirmation that a previous discovered method is been used, meaning that it is a serial killer who is operating here (>Method Confirmation<)
4. A scene which gives possible insights to the spectator of the killer’s thoughts by discussing the killer’s conduct, often suggested by photos taken from the crime scene (>Discussing the Killer<)
5. The detectives carry on with their investigation, unfortunately without results (>Pursuing Investigation<)
6. A media scene which conveys the possible threat to society to the public (>Media Scene<)
7. Since the investigation still does not lead to anything, pressure is put on to the higher authorities(>Pressure on Authority<)
8. This results in the detective(s) call for help and someone outside the police station enters the stage (>The Outsider<)
9. Irritation by the other officers since it feels like their case is taken by someone else (>Irritated Officers<)
10. Following new leads as provided by the outsider, the spectator discover things, like the home and occupation, of the serial killer (>Getting to know the Killer<)
11. The spectator perceives his life and how the structure of murders is applied to it (>Life of the Killer<)
12. Seeing the killer looking for new victims (>Victim Search<)
13. Learning how the serial killer communicates with his victims, before, during and after the crime (>Killer-Victim Interaction<)
14. Grasping how it all led to the event the spectator only witnessed afterwards, in the beginning of the film, the serial killer is eventually understood
(>The Understanding<)
15. Now starts the wondering, could the serial killer be held accountable for his actions or not, in other words, is the serial killer insane or not (>Responsibility<)
16. An encounter with the profiler (>The Encounter<)
17. The profiler is both strengthen and tired by the search for the killer. The profiler wants to confront the serial killer, which sometimes leads to killing the serial killer (>Tired /Determined Profiler<)
18. Feelings of guilt by the profiler, since this person was so close to monstrosity and by realizing how he or she is affected by the fact that the profiler was unable to find the serial killer for a long time(>Realization of the Profiler<)(Cettl 20-21)
In the following part and in the next chapter, themes and concepts that will be used in the analysis are labelled by putting them between brackets. Although I will use the list of Cettl in the analysis, he is not the only one who has written on the conventions of the serial killer film. For instance Amy Taubin, who argues that serial killer films take place in “white
neighbourhoods-suburbia”(124) and she states that it is often a white male (>White Male<) who murders someone of his own race (124). Richard Dyer adds that “in fact and fiction [...] they are men who kill women or socially inferior men (boys, blacks, queers)”(Kill 148). According to Hantke, who discusses the notion of monstrosity in the serial killer film, one of the characteristics of these films is the fact that the serial killer enters the story in the
beginning of the film (2003). The body of the serial killer lacks any sort of monstrosity, which causes feelings of disappointment for the audience. Since they saw what the serial killer has caused, they might expect someone awful to look at, but instead, they are looking at a ‘normal’ human being (Hantke Monstrosity).Since the evilness is not visible from the outside, directors of serial killer films often use what Hantke called a certain “slip of the mask” (34) (>Slip of the Mask<), moments or even scenes in which the serial killer loses his attitude of normality. Other features of the serial killer film are the fact that individual murders are not underscored and that violence in itself is often kept away from the audience (Hantke
Monstrosity). Most films end well for the serial killer, for example because they escaped from the police (Hantke Monstrosity). This in contrast to the conventions of Cettl as mentioned above. However, it is in line what Dyer states in Kill and Kill again, namely that the police often is not portrayed as very powerful in finding the serial killer, as opposed to the so called “profiler”(149), who is able to make a quite accurate description of the serial killer. Because of the lack of visible monstrosity of the serial killer’s body, this genre has to deal with a certain kind of representation problem (Hantke Monstrosity). So serial killer films have to convey the monstrosity in others ways, often by using a couple of the following methods: using the serial killer’s private environment to express his evilness, looking at the tainted bodies of the victims, the reorganisation of the bodies by the forensic expert or the space where the story is set itself could function to express the evilness(Hantke Monstrosity). Hantke further argues that in order to make up for this representation problem, often serial killer films are amazing to look at (Monstrosity).
Since Simpson discusses the tendencies in the serial killer film after 9/11, I would like to end this part by elaborating on his work and by relating it to today’s society. As mentioned before, Simpson argues that the battle between investigator and serial killer will stay in the genre. He also states that well-known serial killer films use the fear to encounter the possible evilness within the person of the spectator. Simpson (Whither) also touches upon certain themes with in the serial killer film, like the “stop me before I kill again theme” (127) (>Stop
me before I Kill again<) and the family of the investigator being in danger (>Threat Investigator’s Family<).
According to Simpson (Whither), with the impact caused by 9/11 and the presence of the Americans in the Iraq war, seeing a well-known figure as the serial killer in cinema is reassuring for the American audience. He argues that:
[...] the serial killer is a shadow manifestation of the American self-image of independence and innocence. These values have been tested sorely by the traumatic national events of the past several years. The notable embrace of the serial killer as hero may signify a nationalistic re-justification of the violence that has always been the shadow of American independence” (124).
Meanwhile, we are living in 2018 so times have changed. The fear caused by 9/11 might still be relevant, although this is already seventeen years ago. There might be more recent threats, events or social tendencies which could affect the serial killer film. Just to name a few are for example the emergence of social media, the threat caused by IS and the #Metoo movement. In the next chapter I will discuss fascination and character engagement. After that I will elaborate further on threats, events and social tendencies of the last ten years which could affect the contemporary serial killer film.
Chapter 2 The fascinating serial killer
Fascination and character engagement
I will now introduce Murray Smith’s theory regarding character engagement. This for the reason that fascination of the spectator for a character and engagement with the character are related. The level of engagement with a character affects the fascination the spectator might have for the character. For the purpose of this thesis, I would like to use one of the definitions of the verb “to fascinate”, which is “to have a strong interest or attraction for” (Webster’s New College Dictionary, quoted in Degen 371).
In his book Engaging Characters, Murray Smith discusses different theories of identification with characters and proposes a different kind of theory, which he calls “the structure of sympathy” (73). This structure consists of three different layers, each one representing a different kind of engagement: recognition, alignment and allegiance. The first one, recognition, entails the process of the spectator’s composition of character, the aspects which contribute to the construction of an individualised, active human being. Since it is based on continuity, recognition allows change and development. The layer of recognition seems self-evident and therefore has not gained as much attention from the academic world as the other two layers (Smith 81-83).
Alignment means the activity in which spectators are allowed to have as much access as the characters have regarding their actions, feelings and knowledge. In order to examine alignment, one could look at the degree of “spatio-temporal attachment” and “subjective acces” (Smith 83). Spatio-temporal attachment regards to what extent the spectator is limited to follow the actions, feelings and knowledge of one character, or that the spectator gains this information of multiple characters. This is the first aspect of alignment. Subjective access entails to what extent the spectator has access to the internal or mental state of a character, this could differ among characters in a narrative. This is the second aspect of alignment. Together, spatio-temporal attachment and subjective access provide narrative information which leads to the “structure of alignment” (Smith 83).
The last layer is the layer of allegiance and is about the moral judgement of the character by the spectator. This moral judgement is based on the spectator assuming to have trustworthy information of the mental state of the character and grasping the circumstances in which the character performed his actions. This judgement involves
cognitive and affective aspects and is the foundation of moral structures. Based on these moral structures, spectators rate characters in order of preference (Smith 84).
Carl Plantinga criticizes Smith’s theory by arguing that it does not take into
consideration other sorts of responses to characters, for instance negative responses. He therefore proposes a different typology to categorize the different attitudes spectators could have towards fictional characters. Moreover, Plantinga states that Smith uses the terms sympathy and allegiances as synonyms and argues why they are not interchangeable. Furthermore, he mentions factors which could influence the spectators’ moral judgement of a character and thereby the spectators’ allegiance, arguing that the moral judgement of
characters is not always based purely on moral criteria (34-51).
Although in the remainder of this thesis I will use Smith’s structure of sympathy, it is important to keep in mind that his theory might not be sufficient to cover all the responses the character of the serial killer elicit by the spectator. This for the reason that most of the time it is not a moral character. However, his structure of sympathy enables the spectator to see how the character of the serial killer is constructed and more importantly, how fascination for this character is created within the narrative. Therefore I would like to relate the different levels of engagement to the concept of fascination. Moreover, I argue that the fascination for the character of the serial killer could best be examined by analysing two perspectives, the perspective of the serial killer and the perspective of the character who tries to track him down.
Regarding recognition, fascination is established for example by postponing the entrance of the character of the serial killer, thereby raising curiosity by the spectator. Or by not revealing the face of the serial killer for a while, only showing some other body parts. This problematizes recognition. The level of alignment can contribute to fascination for instance by only permitting the spectator to be spatio-temporally attached, thereby leaving out the insights subjective access could provide of the thoughts of the serial killer. In case of the spectator being aligned with the detective, fascination for the character of the serial killer could be established by witnessing how the detective is having a hard time finding the serial killer. Allegiance could lead to fascination for the character of the serial killer if the spectator discovers that he or she evaluates this character not as entirely morally bad, maybe realizing that they have more in common than expected. Here the notion of good versus bad could play an important part, acknowledging that it might be not such a clear distinction.
In the next paragraph, I will elaborate on how spectators engage with a particular type of characters, namely characters which are morally questionable. Consequently, I will
discuss how spectators might engage with the most morally questionable character of all, the serial killer. So this section ends with an overview of possible reasons why people find this type of character fascinating.
Fascination and character engagement with morally questionable characters, like the
serial killer
In this part I would like to elaborate amongst others on the work of Jason Mittel and Murray Smith. Jason Mittel focuses in his chapter Characters particularly on characters in relation to series, which factors might affect the storyline of a series and how this kind of narrative form influences the way in which spectators engage with characters. Besides the difference between film characters and characters of a series, in which the former is able to change a lot, the latter has to be more or less stable in order to be engageable for the spectator, Mittel also discusses why spectators are willing to engage with antiheroes. Although Mittel focuses on characters in series, I assume that the ways to establish fascination for a character in film are the same. Furthermore, I would like to discuss Murray Smiths’ article Gangsters. This for the reason that in this article, he also mentions elements which contribute to finding the antihero fascinating.
According to Smith, an antihero is a character with whom the spectator align with but who seems to be morally questionable, which result in a doubting or negative moral
allegiance (As mentioned in Mittel 142-43). Mittel discusses a couple of reasons why the spectator roots for the bad guy. He states that antihero narratives use “relative morality”(143) (>Relative Morality<). This means that in comparison to other characters, the antihero does not seem as bad as they do (Mittel 143; Smith, Gangsters 225-227). Mittel also argues that in the case of the antihero, alignment and elaboration are very important for allegiances. Earlier in the chapter, a “highly elaborated character” (133) is explained by Roberta Pearson, stating that series characters are more affected and formed by the events they encounter than that they undergo a real transformation (Pearson as mentioned by Mittel 133). The latter is of course more visible in film. So according to Mittel, knowing more about the antihero by getting to know his past, his feelings and mental state, the more plausible it is that the
spectator let him join while discovering the narrative. Mittel argues that this may be partly due to a “fictionalized Stockholm Syndrome”(144), meaning that spending a lot of time with morally questionable characters results in the spectator creating sympathy for them since he or she starts to look at things from their stance (>Fictionalized Stockholm Syndrome<). It is important here to keep in mind the difference between series and film, since series may return every day or week, which might be easier to create a bond with the spectator since different elements of the character could be spread over different episodes. Although people could also binge a series, watching multiple episodes in a row. This makes the spectator longer engaged with a character then when the spectator has to wait for the following day or
week in order to watch the next episode. In contrast to a series, a film has to establish the engagement between character and spectator immediately.
Another aspect which makes the spectator engage with the antihero is charisma, making the spectator neglect the bad sides of the character (>Charisma<). Charisma is often caused by the actors’ performance and appearance and how other characters deal with him, leading the spectator to a particular attitude towards the antihero (Mittel 144). This charisma of the antihero is also partly caused by the fascination created by the morally questionable actions performed by the antihero, which makes the spectator hooked. According to Smith, fascination is caused since the immoral actions of the antihero allow the spectator to
experience events which he or she otherwise never would experience in real life. Moreover, he also mentions how the notions of kinship, whether present or absent, and moral learning could contribute to the fascination for an antihero (Gangsters 228-236)(>Kinship<)(>Moral Learning<). By aligning with the antiheroes, the spectator has access to their immoral thoughts (Mittel 145)(>Harmless access to immoral thoughts<). Furthermore, Mittel mentions Vermeule, who states that this fascination has to do with the concept of “Machiavellian intelligence”, knowing how to influence other people and having social knowledge, from which the spectator could learn (Vermeule as mentioned by Mittel 145) (>Machiavellian Intelligence<). Even though the majority of her examples are not antiheroes, Mittel
recognizes the characteristics of Vermeule’s description of a Machiavellian character in many television series with morally questionable figures. He therefore argues that this might be an important element in the popularity of the antihero(145).
Lastly, in her article Fictional Reliefs, Margrethe Bruun Vaage states that for the spectator the notion of fiction is important in order to engage with morally questionable characters, since this frees the spectator of the burden of moral consequences, permitting him or herself to see things from the stance of the morally questionable character (237). This freedom fiction provides to the spectator not to be concerned with any moral commitments which might be elicit while engaging with nonfiction, is what Vaage calls “fictional relief” (237). Furthermore, she discusses the concept of “reality check” (220) (>Reality Check<). This refers to the process of the spectator being reminded, by means of elements in the fictional narrative, of the moral and political results his or her engagement with the narrative would have if it was reality.
Knowing why spectators would engage with immoral characters and what attracts the spectator towards them, I would now like to turn to the most immoral character and the focus of this thesis, the serial killer. According to Brian Jarvis, there is common fascination for the serial killer among the public. An extreme expression of this is what Jarvis explains as ‘murderabilia’ (327), the act of collecting items related to a serial killer (2007). He also addresses the track record of the serial killer regarding films, naming the multiple sorts of film
starring the character of the serial killer. To name a few: serial killer dramas, supernatural serial killers, serial killer roadmovies, true-life dramas and documentaries. Jarvis claims that the growth of the genre is due to the fact that the films often show up as part of a series (2007: 328).
But what is it that makes the public want to see more serial killer films? According to Richard Dyer, it is the seriality people like, the notion of repetition and trying to discover structures in the deeds of the serial killer (Kill and Kill again 145-147).This makes this serial killer character very suitable for television series. Allué adds to this that in fiction, whereas the spectator is not in danger, he or she could also enjoy the artistic element of the murders (The Aesthetics 11). This could be related to Margrete Bruun Vaages’ concepts of fictional relief and reality check as explained above. Knowing that the murders are fictional, allows the spectator to appreciate the artistic element. However, if it is nonfiction, this would probably evoke a response of disgust by the spectator, since he or she realizes that a real person is murdered this way. Allué also mentions other reasons why people find serial killer narratives compelling. One of them is the reassuring component these narratives could contain. Allué argues that the serial killer narrative offers the spectator the possibility to place the social violence not in oneself or society, but in the serial killer’s aberration (11). She elaborates on this by citing Carla Freccero, who argues that the serial killer represents the notion of violence caused by an individual, bodily performed. The violence caused by society is projected onto the individual. So by eliminating the serial killer, this problem is solved
(Freccero as cited by Allué 11). Thus, the reassuring aspect then lies in the elimination of the serial killer, since this would mean the elimination of everything that disturbs the order. In order to stop the serial killer, someone has to track him down. Therefore, the serial killer narrative also provides the spectator the possibility to engage with someone who tries to protect the social order, for instance the police or FBI (Allué 11). Like Allué, Simpson also argues that the serial killer narrative is reassuring, as mentioned before in chapter one. He relates this feeling of reassurance to the impact caused by 9/11 and the American
involvement in the Iraq war. Simpson states that for the American audience, affected by these events, seeing a familiar character in film is reassuring (Whither the Serial killer movie? 124).
However, Simpson connects 9/11 to serial killing, like the murders committed by the Manson family, by stating that in both cases “the victims happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time” (There’s Blood 182). He also argues that in the post 9/11 decade, the composition of gender is an often addressed theme in horror cinema and that this decade witnessed wars. Moreover, Simpson mentions the 9/11 tension of the split between the unprivileged and privileged classes and the need to reorganize the notion of the (foreign)
Other. Furthermore, he argues that after 9/11, horror comes from the unknown, from outside the home (There’s Blood 183-199).
Whereas Simpson mentions some tendencies in the years after 9/11, I would like to focus on the tendencies in the years 2007-2018, which might affect the contemporary serial killer film since this is the time period this thesis focuses on. According to Wikipedia, these years witnessed the international financial crisis, the Arab spring and the threat of IS. The latter two among other events resulted in the refugee crisis, which started in the summer of 2015 and still continues (Wikipedia). Moreover, the Dutch website Volkskrant.nl mentions that in the Netherlands, there is an increase of people who decide to use euthanasia in order to end their lives (Volkskrant.nl). Other recent debates are regarding privacy and the privacy of our data, recently in the news by the Facebook crisis. Additionally, we are now in the middle of the #Metoo movement. In this movement women and men fight against sexual harassment, mainly in the show business industry. Besides social tendencies, there are also developments in media which could affect the serial killer film in this time period. For
Chapter 3 Analysis
Analytical approach
In order to answer the research question, I will analyse three films. I argue that fascination could best be examined by analysing two perspectives. On the one hand by analysing the perspective of the serial killer and how this character evokes fascination, on the other hand by examining the perspective of the character who tries to track the serial killer down and with whom the spectator shares the fascination for the serial killer. Therefore, each analysis will consist of an examination of two characters regarding engagement. These characters will be the investigator, profiler or FBI agent and the serial killer. In order to examine these characters regarding engagement, Murray Smith’s structure of sympathy will be used. By combining these two perspectives, an explanation of the fascination is provided.
Consequently, by looking at what information the spectator gets about these two characters, I will try to interpret this information regarding the theme of the film.
In the analysis, the following films will be examined: Mr. Brooks (Bruce A. Evans 2007), Untraceable (Gregory Hoblit 2008) and Solace (Afonso Poyart 2015). In the first film, the serial killer is the protagonist, in the latter two the protagonist is the detective or outsider. With each film, first the character of the detective or FBI agent will be examined, using the structure of sympathy, elaborating how each level of character engagement is established within that film. After that, the character of the serial killer will be examined using the same method. The analysis of each film ends with a section which I call ‘Information regarding characters and theme’. In this section, I will first discuss to what extent the film follows the conventions as mentioned by Cettl. These are already labelled in chapter one, but they can also be found in the attachment, together with the themes as mentioned by Simpson and the concepts of fascination as mentioned by Mittel and Smith in chapter two. This is because Simpson discusses the development of the genre after 9/11 and therefore mentions some contemporary trends in the genre and Mittel and Smith elaborate on the compelling aspects of the antihero, which might also be applicable to the character of the serial killer.
Consequently, the elements which contributed to the fascination of the serial killer in the film will be discussed. The ‘Information regarding character and theme’ section ends with an elaboration of the themes the film touches upon. In short, both a character analysis as a thematic analysis will be conducted.
Mr. Brooks (2007)
In the film Mr. Brooks (2007), the characters of analysis are detective Tracy Atwood and serial killer Earl Brooks.
Tracy Atwood
Detective Tracy Atwood enters the narrative after fourteen minutes, after the spectator have already met the serial killer and seen him killing, which leads to her investigating the crime scene. During the narrative the spectator is aligned with Atwood by means of spatio-temporal attachment, allowing the spectator to follow some of her actions and to hear her talk.
During her first appearance, which is her entrance at the crime scene, the narrative immediately suggests that Atwood is the one with authority regarding this case. This is illustrated by the fact that her colleague Hawkins sends everybody else away, so Atwood can take a closer look at the victims. This conveys to the spectator that she is the detective who is going to investigate this case. Her appearance contributes to this impression, wearing a suit and white latex gloves. While investigating the bodies, Atwood expresses her
observations. The bodies are staged and the killer left his signature, two thumbprints. She compares her observations with previous crimes scenes, conveying to the spectator that she is looking for this killer quite a while. Hawkins tells her the details of this crime scene, which makes Atwood conclude that it must be the killer who was inactive for the last two years. She admits that she hoped that the killer had died or already was caught for something else.
The detective comes across as a clever and tough woman, illustrated by her
knowledge regarding the method of the killer and telling this to her colleague. Until now the spectator has seen and heard the detective, but still does not know her name. This is revealed to the spectator when she is handed a summons by someone, who asks if she is Tracy Atwood, which she confirms. This completes the level of recognition, which is
established by her entrance at the crime scene, dressed in formal clothes, how her colleague talks to her, seeing her investigating the crime scene and by someone else calling her name. The appearance of Tracy Atwood is quite consistent during the film, sometimes she more informal dressed when she is at home.
Alignment with the character of Tracy Atwood is established by spatio-temporal attachment. The spectator only has access to Atwood by witnessing her actions and hearing what she says. Although the narrative is more focused on the serial killer, “the Thumbprint Killer” Earl Brooks, it does show Atwood in different situations. For instance, the spectator discovers that she is in a divorce and watches her at home, looking for stuff her future
ex-husband asks for. The impression of Atwood as established by the recognition stage
remains, being a tough woman, although she sometimes comes across as more vulnerable. At the end of the narrative, her tough attitude is explained during the phone call with Brooks.
During the narrative there are several moments that the spectator is aligned with Atwood in which fascination for the serial killer is expressed. For instance when she goes back to the crime scene at night, trying to figure out how he went through that apartment the night of the murders. She wonders if he missed killing and under which circumstances he killed the victims. Another moment is when Atwood confronts Mr. Baffert/Smith at a parking spot, since she is convinced that he has something to do with it, but he does not say anything. This frustrates Atwood. At the end of the narrative, Atwood receives a phone call from Brooks, who wants to know why she became a cop. Atwood is surprised, since the caller does not sound as the man she assumes to be the serial killer. When Atwood asks who he is, Brooks only answers that the murders of her husband and the other serial killer who was after Atwood were not coincidences. After Brooks has his answer, he hangs up. This phone call triggers Atwood, since the man who called her was not the man she expected to be the Thumbprint killer.
Regarding allegiance the spectator evaluates Atwood as a morally good person. Sometimes she behaves a little bit inappropriate, but since the narrative shows her in different situations, the spectator understands why she acts that way. For instance, while discussing with the attorneys and her ex-husband to be Jason Vialo the amount of money he is going to get from her, Atwood says that she would feel really safe if he gets hit by a truck and dies. This for the reason that he asks for an excessive amount of money. Another example of her inappropriate behaviour is almost at the end of the narrative, when Brooks killed Vialo and his attorney and Atwood becomes a suspect. While being close to the solution of the Thumbprint killer, Hawkins wants to asks Atwood a few questions at the office, but Atwood pushes him away. She points her gun at him, arguing that they have to catch the Thumbprint killer otherwise her colleague also gets troubles.
Atwood’s backstory shows that she arrested a lot of criminals, which implies that she is a good at her work. So good that the escaped serial killer Meeks, one of the criminals she putted behind bars, wants to take revenge of her. Her record of caught criminals, together with her search for Brooks, conveys to the spectator that she is a very determined detective. A good detective, who sometimes acts inappropriate. Her tough behaviour is explained at the end of the narrative, it turns out that Atwood always wanted to prove her dad wrong, since he was disappointed that she was a girl. This contributes to the spectator finding Atwood
sympathetic and explains why she works as a cop, even though she is wealthy enough not to work at all. Atwood demonstrates that in order to achieve something, it is sometimes
Earl Brooks
The narrative introduces Earl Brooks at the beginning, showing him immediately after the intertitles. The intertitles convey to the spectator that Mr. Brooks is addicted, but it is not clear then to what. During the intertitles, the spectator hears a man praying. A second male voice asks why he fights it so hard and says the name “Earl”. After the intertitles, a man is shown in what seems to be a fancy toilet area, drying his hands after he washed them. He wears black tie and puts on his glasses. Here the spectator assumes that this man is Mr. Brooks. The praying continues and the spectator witnesses the “Man of the Year” event. The assumption of the spectator that the man of the toilet was Earl Brooks, is confirmed when someone announce Earl Brooks as “Man of the Year” and the spectator recognizes the man from the toilet, witnessing how he stands up to give a speech. This completes the level of recognition of the character of Earl Brooks, since this moment confirms the assumption of the spectator. When Brooks starts speeching, the spectator also recognizes his voice from the prayers in the beginning. So recognition of the character of Earl Brooks is established by hearing his voice and his name being said by another male voice during the intertitles. Also, the fact that a man calls his full name and introduces him at the event as “Man of the Year”. This enables the spectator to recognize the voice and the man seen at the toilet before the event as Mr. Earl Brooks. Brooks seems to be a sophisticated and successful man, however the spectator is already aware of the fact that he is addicted to something. Brooks’ appearance during the narrative is quite consistent, although he changes his outfit when he is going to murder. At work he wears fancy clothes, at home more casual but always his glasses. When he is going to murder, he puts off his glasses and puts on particular clothes and shoes.
Alignment with the character of Brooks is established by spatio-temporal attachment and subjective access. The spectator witnesses Brooks actions in different situations, hear him talk and has some sort of access to his mental state by means of his alter ego Marshall and the conversations Brooks has with Marshall. Also, there are some point of view shots. For instance when Brooks is watching the couple he is following for a while taking a dance class. The spectator witnesses Brooks looking at them, but later on the spectator only sees the couple dancing, suggesting that he or she sees the same as Brooks does. Being mostly aligned with Brooks, the spectator watches him in different roles. As a successful business man, a husband, a father and of course being a killing addict, making him a serial killer. The narrative shows several moments in which the spectator is aligned with Brooks and
fascinated by his character.
For instance, the murder of the couple. Shortly before this moment, the spectator witnesses Brooks at home, praying again as in the beginning of the narrative. In this moment the spectator discovers that Brooks is addicted to killing and sees how he tries to resist the
urge. However, just like the beginning, the voice asks why he fights it so hard, which by now is clear to the spectator that it is Marshall asking this question. The spectator watches how Brooks kisses his wife goodbye and starts preparing for the murder in his studio by changing his outfit. After entering the house of the couple, Brooks initially hesitates to continue since it seems that the couple is having sex. However, Marshall consists that Brooks continues because he wants to see what the couple is doing. Being aligned with Brooks, the spectator watches him watching the couple having sex, but the spectator also watches the couple by means of point of view shot, suggesting that the spectator sees the same as Brooks does. Killing the couple seems to turn Brooks on, illustrated by his facial expression. However, he immediately seems to regret it, implied by his body language and the fact that he does not care if he gets caught due to the open curtains. Being in his studio again, the spectator witnesses Brooks regretting the killing. He looks at the pictures that he took of the dead couple, begging for forgiveness while being naked. After burning them, Marshall suggests that Brooks should go to his wife and make love. These sequence makes the spectator fascinated by Brooks, due to his conflicted behaviour. On the one hand he comes across in this sequence as the troubled man, who tries not to give in to his addiction and regrets it when he did. This makes the spectator feel sympathetic towards them. On the other hand, being turned on by killing people makes the spectator finding him repulsive.
Another moment which makes the spectator fascinated by Brooks is when he discovers that Atwood is looking for him. Together with Marshall Brooks searches for
information about Atwood and finds out that she is a very wealthy woman, who has putted a lot of criminals behind bars. Brooks seems to admire her and wonders why she works as cop even though she does not have to work at all. Moreover, he also wants that for his daughter Jane, having something of her own instead of being dependent of him. This moment
contributes to the spectator having fascination for Brooks, since the spectator would expect that he would have a negative stance towards her. The fact that he has a positive stance towards his enemy, makes him more sympathetic.
Moreover, nearly at the end of the narrative, where he tricks Mr. Smith/Baffert by wanting him to kill him, Brooks has fouled his gun and instead of being killed, he kills Mr. Smith/Baffert while stating that before he became the Thumbprint killer, he already killed a lot of people in many different ways. This moment contributes to the spectator finding Brooks fascinating since it illustrates how clever he is, luring an eliminating the one person who knows that he is the Thumbprint killer.
Regarding allegiance, the spectator is been shifted by the narrative between evaluating Brooks as immoral character and as a moral character. The shift of moral judgement the spectator might experience is caused by several narrative elements. First of all the fact that the killing is Brooks’ addiction, thereby implying that he cannot help it, how
hard he tries and although he is most of the time strong enough, he cannot get rid of it entirely which leads to him murdering sometimes. In order to control his addiction, he goes to AA meetings. By making the killing an addiction, the spectator might perceives Brooks not as entirely responsible for the murders, since he seemed forced to do it and Marshall
encouraging this. Furthermore, after committing the murder of the couple, the narrative shows how Brooks regrets his deeds.
Besides the killings and to what extent he could be held responsible for them, the narrative also shows Brooks as a loving father, who would do everything for his daughter. When his daughter Jane comes home after quitting her study, it turns out that she is pregnant and thinks of taking an abortion. Brooks prohibits Jane to do so, but corrects himself by stating that he and his wife would love to help her raising the child, which makes Jane reconsider whether or not to take an abortion. Later on, Janes pregnancy turns out not to be the reason why she quitted her study, but the fact that she has murdered someone she knew from university. Although Brooks knows it is wrong, he commits a second murder in the same fashion as the first, in order to provide Jane an alibi since she was at her parents’ house during the second murder. The spectator knows it is wrong to kill, even if it is for his own daughter, but the spectator can understand why he does it. He even puts his own life at risk, knowing that his daughter has the same addiction and the fact that she would love to take over his business, which is easier if he dies.
However, there are also narrative aspects which causes that the spectator might evaluate Brooks as immoral character. For example the fact that he likes killing, he clearly seems to enjoy it while doing it. Also, the moment that he kills Mr. Smith/Baffert, instead of being killed by him. It seems that Brooks had it all planned out, which makes him come across as immoral. In contrast to the moral intention with which he lured Baffert in the first place, namely to stop Brooks killings. Looking from Brooks perspective, he wants to take care of his family and future grandchild.
Information regarding the characters and theme
The film Mr. Brooks (2007) touches upon some conventions as discussed by Cettl. So does the film start with the conventions 10, 11 & 12, getting to know the killer, life of the killer and victim search. These do not follow each other, but are more interwoven and also return later on in the narrative. These appear in the narrative by showing Mr. Brooks at the “Man of the Year” event, in which he conveys to the spectator to be the owner of the Brooks Box factory. Later on the spectator witnesses Brooks in the car with his wife, talking about their daughter and having some ice cream in order to provide Brooks the chance to look at a couple he would like to murder. The spectator witnesses Brooks at home, praying that he does not
want to kill again, which introduces convention 14, understanding, implying to the spectator that Brooks have to kill, but not necessary want to. Later on in the narrative this convention is further elaborated by showing Brooks at an AA meeting and admitting to Mr Smith/Baffert that it is an addiction. The narrative continues, showing convention 1 and 2, murder aftermath and a crime scene with a naked female body. These conventions are also interwoven, since the spectator witnesses Brooks murdering the couple, which included a female and later on the detective Atwood and her colleague investigating the crime scene. This leads to conventions 3. method confirmation and 4. discussing the killer. These are established by Atwood’s colleague mentioning that the killer left his signature, thumbprints, at the crime scene and how Brooks has committed the murder. The colleague first thinks it might be a copycat, but Atwood states that the details are not made public, so it’s not a copycat and thus the man she is been looking for quite a while, a serial killer. Then the spectator witnesses Atwood pursuing the investigation, convention number 5, showing how she visits Mr Smith/ Baffert at home and later on at a parking spot. Like mentioned before, convention 12, the victim search, returns when Mr Smith/Baffert and Brooks are looking for a next victim to murder. Killer-victim interaction, convention 13, appears in the narrative due to Brooks, who greets his victims by saying hallo, revealing himself to them before killing them. Also, at the end of the narrative, Brooks kills Mr/ Smith Baffert, making him one of his victims and during the narrative the spectator witnessed their dialogue before the murder and during the murder. Convention number 15, responsibility, seems to be connected with convention 14, understanding. Since Brooks is addicted to killing, which explains why he does it, it also addresses the notion whether or not Brooks could be held fully responsible. Also the use in this film of the doppelgänger motif, illustrated by the character of Marshall as being the evil voice in Brooks head, contributes to this notion of responsibility. Convention 16, the
encounter, appears in the narrative by means of Brooks calling detective Atwood in order to get an answer, while Atwood is confused since he doesn’t sound as Mr Smith/Baffert, the person of whom she thinks is the Thumbprint killer. Besides the conventions of Cettl, the narrative also shows other conventions, for example convention 21, the killer being a white male. Moreover, the use of Brooks glasses could be seen as an illustration of convention number 22, slip of the mask. This for the reason that he takes off his glasses when he is going to murder and when he has a conversation with Marshall, who represents Brooks’ addiction and thus his monstrosity.
While the narrative touches upon a lot of conventions as mentioned by Cettl, maybe not always in his order and some of them return multiple times, there are also a couple which are left out. For example conventions number 6, 8 and 9, the media scene, the outsider and the consequently irritated officers. Maybe since the narrative focusses on Brooks, introducing
more characters looking for him might decrease the suspense as created by one detective and her colleague looking for him, providing the spectator two sides, Brooks and Atwood. Also conventions 17 and 18 do not appear, which includes the elimination of the serial killer. This in contrast to what Hantke (Monstrosity without a body) argues, namely that often the serial killer gets away in the narrative. This is the case with Brooks, dropping the phone while leaving Atwood with the question to whom she had spoken. Since the spectator is mostly aligned with Brooks, him not being caught or killed pleases the spectator. However it might be too early to state that the narrative provides an happy ending for the character of Brooks, since it suggests that Brooks always has to watch out for his own daughter who might kill him in the future.
Regarding fascination for the character of the serial killer, Mr. Brooks, it is mostly established by information presented by himself. Since he is the protagonist in the film, the narrative was mainly focused on him. Probably one of the most intriguing aspects of this character are his two sides. Being the descent, successful man, husband and father on the one hand, while on the other hand he is the careful and intelligent serial killer who really enjoys killing. Here the concept of Kinship, both the presence and absence, contributes to the fascination for Brooks. Being the husband and the father, the spectator could relate to him. However, when Brooks is committing a murder, the spectator cannot relate to his behaviour at all, enjoying killing. The narrative switches multiple times between those two, resulting in the spectator finding Brooks compelling at one moment, while in the next moment he could come across as repulsive. The concept of Harmless access to immoral thoughts is expressed when Brooks is watching the couple having sex. Initially, this makes Brooks hesitate to continue, but he is forced by Marshall. Via a point of view shot of Brooks, the spectator witnesses the couple having sex. This enables and permits the spectator to see things he or she in real life might not have the courage to do so. Brooks breaking into the couple’s house could be seen as an expression of the post 9/11 tendency that horror comes from outside, invading the home as mentioned by Simpson (There’s Blood 199).
Brooks’ repulsive side is embodied and evoked by Marshall, who convinces him every time to commit a next murder. Here the concept of Relative Morality contributes to finding Brooks fascinating and sympathetic, since he does not appear as evil in contrast to Marshall. Moreover, opposing Brooks to Mr. Smith/Baffert also results in finding Brooks more
sympathetic, since he is addicted to killing while Smith/Baffert makes the conscious decision to attend a murder.
Furthermore, the concept of Charisma is applicable to the character of Brooks. Brooks being charismatic is established by how he behaves around his wife and daughter and around his company. Moreover, the spectator really felt sympathy for this character, since he or she sometimes understood his actions due to the subjective access to his mental
