In the annals of crime history, there is perhaps no more sympathetic serial killer than Jeffrey Dahmer. Milwaukee’s most infamous cannibal killer was certainly a human monster, but never quite in the same league as men like Gacy, Bundy, or Richard Ramirez.
Jeffrey Dahmer was, by all accounts, something of a misfit. A gay man who had a great deal of trouble accepting his sexual orientation and with a paralyzing fear of rejection, Dahmer killed not because of some savage bloodlust or sadomasochistic streak, but instead so that the could keep those he was involved with for all time. None of this makes Dahmer’s crimes any less reprehensible, but as far as serial killers go, Dahmer is an interesting study because of the duality of his very nature.
An exploration of this duality is what lies at the heart of director David Jacobson’s film Dahmer. Not since John McNaughton’s seminal Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has serial killer exploitation cinema reached such a lofty artistic plateau. Because of this, Dahmer is easily one of the best serial killer films to come along in more than a decade.
However, if your preconceived notion of the serial killer canon revolves around Hollywood dross like Hannibal and Seven, then you’re in for a rude awakening. Hannibal the Cannibal is a pale and flat imitation of Jeremy Renner’s masterful performance as Jeffrey Dahmer, one that lacks any subtlety, nuance, or restraint-but what can one expect from Anthony ‘look at me, I’m acting!’ Hopkins?
If Renner’s performance has any film history antecedent, it’s Brian Cox’s portrayal of Lecter in Michael Mann’s Manhunter. Both actors manage to infuse their character with an animalistic predatory nature-which is far more interesting than any of Hopkins’ or any number of other Hollywood film villains’ histrionics.
At its core, though, Dahmer isn’t so much an exploitation film as it is a character study. David Jacobson, who also wrote the film, has downplayed the gore and violence in favor of a much more restrained look at what might have motivated a man to attempt to create his own army of sex slaves, and devour the internal organs of his failed experiments.
Since the film is fictional, certain liberties have been taken with the tale. Jeffrey retains his job at the chocolate factory, and still cruises malls and gay bars looking for victims, but the film has a rather narrow scope-focusing primarily on Dahmer’s contentious relationship with his father, his first murder (committed as a teenager), and a potential relationship with a gay man named Rodney (Artel Kayaru). Much of the story is presented in a series of extended flashbacks that occasionally give the film a rather surreal and disjointed feel, but it all honestly works in the film’s favor given the subject matter.
Further enhancing the mood of surreality that paints the proceedings is the direction and cinematography. Sporting a visual look that vacillates between hyper-chromatic reds, cool blues, and sterile, almost washed out whites, the film is never boring to look at. There’s a decidedly Argento-esque feel to the use of color, with the hyper saturated reds often reminding this reviewer of the colors from Suspiria.
Jacobson may have been inspired by Argento’s use of color, but that’s essentially where the similarities between the two filmmakers ends. Jacobson is a competent filmmaker, but he doesn’t quite have the same visual style or eye for camera movements as Argento. This is a good thing, though, as the decision to film many sequences in a relatively static fashion only serves to enhance the documentary-like feel of the movie. As someone who’s followed the Dahmer story with interest for a number of years, I can safely assure you that it’s very easy to forget that this is a film and not a documentary.
Most of the reason for that is the excellent performance of Jeremy Renner. My number one concern going into the film was that Renner wouldn’t be able to convince me that he was Jeffrey Dahmer-and I’m happy to report that I was completely wrong. Renner only resembles Dahmer in a rudimentary sense physically. However, he really nails Dahmer’s self-effacing mannerisms, his accent and dialect, and so on. After a few minutes, Renner was Jeffrey Dahmer…which is no small feat.
Ultimately, it’s a shame that more people won’t see Dahmer. However, given the title character and the preconceived notions about subject matter, most audiences will skip it in favor of something lighter, more wholesome, or uplifting. While Dahmer may not be the feel good movie of the year, it is a fascinating look into loneliness, despair, desperation, and the heart of darkness. Perhaps most intriguing of all is the way Renner and Jacobson take a character who’s often viewed as largely unsympathetic and make an audience feel for him despite knowing that what he’s doing is wrong. In this regard, I think they’ve nailed the true essence of the real Jeffrey Dahmer.
If you loved Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, then Dahmer is a must see film.
Horror Geek Rating: 4 out of 5
