#i will probably try and post more ideas about it at some point | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

v3lv3tsin · 2 days ago

Text

bad time, good time: nishimura riki

| pairning: nishimura riki x reader

I genre: fashionmajor!niki, lawmajor!reader

I warnings: no warnings <3

I word count: 1.5k

I stefy's note: i know i should be focusing on the jungwon series but i suddenly got this idea at 3 am (i mean who isn't obsessed with korean convenience stores now lol), so enjoy :)

[ BACK TO MASTERLIST ]

"Towards the middle of the thirteenth century inquisitorial procedure..." You felt your eyes glaze over the page once again, trying to focus on the words once again. Finally checking the clock on the wall opposite to your desk on the right side, to your surprise it showed 2 am.

No wonder why you felt tired in the first place. You've been studying and writing assignments ever since you woke up. Exams were coming soon so you couldn't and shouldn't be waisiting any time. Getting you out of your thoughts was the sound of your stomach rumbling which reminded you of your hunger.

Shit. Yeah. Maybe some snacks and ramen would help.

That's how you found yourself looking at the ramen isle in the small convenience not sure what kind of buldak ramen to have for dinner. Holding tightly onto the plastic glass cup filled with ice and the grape ade plastic bag you tiptoed hoping to reach the top shelf. You couldn't reach the one you wanted, before an arm extended from behind you and grabbed the ramen cup for you.

"Here!" Niki said, handing the ramen to you. Turning around to take the cup ramen from his hand you're met with a pair of brown eyes. The mysterious man was tall from what you could grasp.

Not wanting to stare for longer than expected, you answer. "Thanks." Pausing for a moment, you continue on the same surpirsed tone not expecting him to help you. "You didn't have to." Taking the cup ramen from his hand you take another look at him.

"Carbonara, huh?" Niki asked with a small grin on his face as he looks at the floor, then at your choice of noddles for dinner. It shouldn't be a surprise that you would choose the carbonara noodles since they're the best. Of course.

Seeing your confused face he decides to tease you. "You might need some cheese for that." Niki points at the sides isle hoping to make you understand what he meant in the first place.

"Yeah." You answer realizing that you forgot to get some cheese as buldak noodles are always better with a bit of cheese. Pausing to somehow manage to explain yourself you continue on the same confessing tone. "I totally forgot."

"I'm Niki, by the way." Niki says finally introducing himself, thinking it was high time he does so since you have been talking for some time now.

Extending his hand you take it hesitantly before introducing yourself to him. "Y/N." Shaking his hand you give him a shy smile before turning to leave and get the cheese you talked about until then.

"I guess i'll see you around." Niki adds seeing that you looked almost rushed to be anywhere but here. It was clear that he wanted to continue talking to you, but that was not the case for you.

Or so he thought.

Laying down onto the bed tiredly you open the history book to get back to reading you think to yourself. "Niki." Taking a bite from the noodles followed by a sip of the grape ade you bought moments ago you decide to check his instagram, hoping to at least to find some more information about him. To say the least, you were curious.

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

| INSTAGRAM POST - NOV 15th.

niki_kikiki

Liked by wonkiten, byfsjy and 500 others

niki_kikiki ⏱️👔

View all 200 comments

wonkiten he's not a baby mandu anymore

icehoon where's my credit

user01 THE SECOND PICTURE?! OMGG NI-KII 😫

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

What the actual fuck? How does he look so handsome? And in a suit also. What's his major?

Taking another bite from the noodles as you decide to check another photo from his instagram hoping to see him in a different outfit and a hint probably of his major. That's when you clicked on the most recent photo that he had posted only to see that it was posted 5 hours ago.

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

| INSTAGRAM POST - 5 hours ago.

niki_kikiki

Liked by icehoon, catseong and 1000 others

niki_kikiki 🪩

View all 500 comments

catseong coolest dude i'm so serious

byfsjy WOAHH OKAYY BUDDY OKAY

user02 THE THIRD PICTURE HELLO!?!!!?

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

As you were just about to take a sip of the grape ade you boughts hours ago seeing those pictures definetly shocked you. He looked so good. So hot.

Finally finishing your meal after taking one last look at Nikis instagram photos you get the history book that has been onto the bed the whole time. Looking over the pages trying to get back to reading the last word you remember is "Inquisition" before darkness steals your vision living you blind.

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

Days later you found yourself in the same convenience store looking at the same ramen isle trying to choose what to have for dinner. Shaking you off your thoughts, as you were about to reach for your usual carbonara buldak noodles is a deep voice, almost familiar. Behind you.

Putting his hand against the metalic shelf, consequently trapping you between his body and the isle. "I didn't think i would see you again." Niki confesses in a low voice.

Turning around to be met with the same dark brown eyes from two days ago as you slightly blushed. Tilting your head you look at him confused for a second as you didn't expect to see him either. Especially not at this hour. "Well i'm here." You answer him not knowing exactly what to say.

Coming closer with his body to yours, Niki extends his hand to take two carbonara buldak noodles cups. He was close. Too close. Taking both of the noddle cups into his hand and holding them into his hand Niki finally answers you. "I was thinking..." Pausing for a second to rub the back of his neck as he looked down onto the floor he continues in a low voice. "Maybe we could eat together here."

Holding onto the plastic cup filled with ice and this time, a peach ice tea you looked at him and then onto the floor blushing. One thing was for sure, that you didn't expect to hear him say that. Before you could answer him or at least let him know what you felt about this idea his deep voice interrupts you.

"Here...I meant anywhere, not only here." Niki explains himself to you, hoping also for a positive answer. "We could eat somewhere else." Niki adds as he continues to explain himself to you. Giving you more ideas to where you two could eat together.

"I would love to" You answer him as you come closer hoping to calm him down as you could see that he wanted to continue talking. Looking at what he was holding into his hand you then decide to ask him in a teasing voice wanting to have less tension between the two of you. "Are you only getting ramen?"

"No, of course not." Niki answers before turning around to get a plastic cup filled with ice from the freezer only to be followed by you on his way. While you were walking to the freezer a jeonju bibimbap triangle kimbap caught your eye so you decide to take it. Turning around Niki eyes you before taking the plastic cup and his drink of choice, a caramel ice americano.

"Since we're eating together i was wondering maybe we could get some snacks." He suggests on a shy tone wanting to spend more time with you as the last time he wasn't able to. He wanted to get to know you.

Nodding you follow him to the chips isle where you took different kinds, some that you have tried before, some that you haven't. Laughing about your height was also Niki as most of the times you couldn't reach the top shelf. Finally reaching the register with the basket full of things you and Niki both wanted to try, when you wanted to pay he didn't let you, with the excuse that "it's on him."

It's not a date,right? It's a date. Is it?

Was all you could think of when he decided to pay for the food. Sitting down at the table at the convenience store as it started raining only yours and his laughs could be heard. Niki would mostly tease you about your snack choices or even the simple fact of what games you play.

Your prediction from days was true, he was in fact a fashion major. No surprise there. Niki would talk about how much he loves it because he is able to express himself. Later in the evening you found yourselves walking on the way to your apartment as he especially mentioned that "a girl shouldn't go alone so late at night."

Before entering the apartment, without any warning, you come closer to Niki with the original intent of kissing his cheek and saying "thanks a lot for the night." But he had other plans. That's when you could feel his lips on yours. You on your tiptoes having to reach his height as you wrapped your hands around his neck, pulling him closer.

"Wow." Taking a deep breath after he pulled away that's all he could say. "I...." Pausing for a second he rubbs the back of his neck while looking at you before continuing. "I guess i'll see you around."

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

Days later you get a notification of a post you have been tagged on. Opening your phone, while in the middle of the contract law lecture you're surprised to see a photo of Niki and you, along with two other pictures of him with the outfit he wore that night. You didn't expect that, so it surely surprised you.

It was cute. He was cute.

───────── ౨ৎ ─────────

| INSTAGRAM POST - NOV 20th.

niki_kikiki

Liked by yourusername, 01boy and 2000 others

niki_kikiki 🌃

View all 1000 comments

yourusername <3

01boy broo that's why you missed game night

ppysnoo cuties

user03 and now he has a girlfriend

USERNAMES GUIDE:

1. niki_kikiki = niki

2. wonkiten = jungwon

3. catseong = jay

4. icehoon = sunghoon

5. byfsjy = jake

6. 01boy = heeseung

7. ppysnoo = sunoo

#Spotify #enhypen #enha #enhypen hard hours #enhypen hard thoughts #enhypen drabbles #enhypen x reader #enhypen scenarios #nishimura riki #nishimura riki x reader #riki nishimura x reader #enhypen imagines #enhypen niki #niki nishimura #nishimura riki x you #riki x reader #enhypen riki #kpop smut #enhypen smut

112 notes · View notes

makiitabaki · 3 days ago

Text

Finally answering this:

Thank you, @saintjustitude for asking me to rant—I adore doing just that :]

(First of all, thank you to everyone for waiting. I know I took a lot of time to write this, but I had only around an hour free every day, and I usually spent it searching for sources. My knowledge is limited; the play isn't available. I rely on memoirs, interviews, and reviews.

My inbox is always open, and if anyone has any Wojtek questions, I'd be absolutely delighted to answer them. And I mean it. It can be anything.

Every quote was translated by me. All my sources are listed.

Unfortunately a part of it wasn't saved, and I don't have access to some info anymore but this post will probably serve as the beginning of a longer thread.)

And now: “Sprawa Dantona” (1975).

1. How did it all come to be? Why was ‘The Danton Case’ and not any other play?

When I say ‘Danton’ directed by Wajda, most probably think of the 1983 version, a political metaphor: Comsal representing the Polish government, Dantonist representing Solidarity. Was it like that originally? Was Wajda just calling for a fight with the government, transforming Przybyszewska's work to fit his own narrative?

In short: No! (At least if we're referring to the 1975 version, the film is completely another story; I'll gladly make another post about it.).

Zygmunt Hübner (I have mentioned him already in this post) chose Wajda to direct the play even though the latter was a relatively young director; something was telling Hübner that giving the play to him would be absolutely necessary. Pszoniak later referred to that event as Wajda being cast in it as much as he himself was.

The play was simply a way to introduce the artistic team Hübner created. There was none of some “noble patriotism’ or 'anti communism'. (None of what Wajda described as the purpose of the later film.)

Why was that play in particular chosen? That is unknown.

“The idea [of exhibiting that play] came from the fact that Hübner was looking for a play (…) that would present his artistic team as a whole, which he assembled with great imagination and intuition.”

At first, Pszoniak laughed into Hübner's face when offered the role. He thought it fine, intruiging, but the character of Robespierre was so foreign to him that he couldn't give anything from his own person or his own experiences to his Maximilien.

He asked for the role of Danton; that role seemed to fit him way better with "his [Danton's] sensuality, his dynamic physiognomy, and his balls."

Wajda and Hübner were quite insistent and more or less forced Pszoniak into the role.

“Hübner and Wajda were so stubborn that they did not take my objection into account. Nothing there [in the role] suited me; there was no starting point for the role. I had no right to play it. But they convinced me for so long that the whole situation with ‘The Danton Case’ became a dead end.”

The transformation from simply a good play to something entirely political in Wajda's eyes was very slow but steady. On that a little later.

2. Pszoniak wasn't ready to play Robespierre? How did he prepare for the role then?

It's very important to note that it was not bad will that made Pszoniak initially refuse the role, but the theater typecast he was put into and which he almost got used to. All of his power and stage presence were connected to his own physicality, to this sort of mobility and expression that he had to (presumably at Wajda's request) abandon while playing Robespierre.

Wojtekspierre getting his hair cut from a man with surprisingly modern glasses

Whether he was in a tragedy or comedy, it was the unique liveliness that made him so different. Suddenly he was offered the role of Robespierre, a man he only knew from unfavorable history books, portrayed a certain way by Przybyszewska, and he's made to stand before the expanse of that character's personality in a try to make him someone physical.

While it might seem quite shocking, when preparing for the role, Pszoniak didn't even read any Robespierre biography. Why? According to him:

“I didn’t think at all about a historical figure, and besides, you can’t play any historical figure. I put aside the books on the French Revolution. I read them much later, when, years later, in Paris. (…) I didn't want to portray a historical figure, so I didn't judge or evaluate him. I simply tried to get closer to him, to understand him as a person. Przybyszewska herself made it easier for me. The text of the play clearly indicated that she was fascinated by him. (...) Przybyszewska constructed this character in an unusual, enigmatic way. I clung to this fascination, it was a reason for treating Robespierre with empathy. This is a necessary condition for creating a character, without empathy you will never be able to get closer to the man you are to become on stage. Wandering through the labyrinth of his emotions, motives for action, opinions he expresses, I became so strongly attached to him, he took over me so much, that as a result I became Robespierre-Pszoniak.”

Pszoniak admitted he didn't want to play a politician [but, of course, as we all know, he was later forced to in ‘Danton’ (1983)].

The preparations took time and patience (especially from his wife - Barbara). Pszoniak tends to describe it as a painful process. Robespierre's physical expression was compared to being bound tightly by his own flesh, almost imprisoned by it, but freed by his mind. Pszoniak realized that all of the power in portraying Robespierre could only be gained from a deeper reflection. How to show a mind on stage?

That Pszoniak didn't know, and so he made the decision to show Robespierre's determination and faith instead of simply a calculated brain. To show a path, an objective. That's why the last scene was so hard to play (conversation between Robespierre and Saint-Just after Danton's death); he even asked Wajda for a white cloth as a makeshift shroud. To Pszoniak, that scene meant the symbolic death of his character. Robespierre (described by Pszoniak as a “very intelligent man") feels that inevitable peril awaits in the near future. The actor often described a feeling of mourning something or someone after the performance.

The challenge of creating the role, in the words of Wojciech Pszoniak:

“I started to control all my reflexes morning till night; from waking up to falling asleep, I was destroying myself. In everyday life, even the smallest activity, I slowed down; I was reducing and cleaning up [every one of] my habits. Torment, the absolute torment of controlling yourself, of managing yourself. Zero spontaneity, the phone rings, my first reaction—run to answer it—I stop myself calmly, in control of every slowed-down gesture. I imitated Zygmunt Hübner's focused gait; I noticed how he placed his feet. And I started walking like that myself. That's how I set a different, more controlled way of moving. After that, I turned to gestures, head movements, the way of getting up, and gesticulation. I felt that I was different. Acquaintances and friends both asked where this change came from. I suppressed the dynamic, extraverted myself.”

And

“I was pushing the boundaries of supervision [over myself], checking how I would behave after drinking a larger amount of vodka. One day I went out with Basia [wife] and friends (...) After a few bottles, at four in the morning, they were amused, cheered up, asking if I was sick because I was behaving like a machine. After three weeks of suffering, I reached ground zero. This happened during the rehearsals. A conversation about Robespierre and Danton. I joined the discussion, exclaiming, 'I disagree!’ - and suddenly I saw that my hand was no longer my hand, that it was not the hand of that Pszoniak that I am, but that it was already a hand—the beginning of someone else.”

3. What of Danton?

Here the problem with the play began. The man cast as Danton, Bronisław Pawlik, was just... terrible.

He was a good actor in general, definitely, but in short (explanation for the anglophones), it was like casting Danny DeVito as Danton.

He was short of stature, weak of voice, much older than Pszoniak, and simply unfit for the role.

He didn't have a stage presence; his voice was silenced by the other people on stage, and Pszoniak kept acting as if there was some great, dangerous opponent when there wasn't—the audience seemed to notice it.

It all added to a kind of feeling of resentment after preparing so long for the role of Robespierre.

Danton (Bronisław Pawlik), Camille (Olgierd Łukaszewicz) and Westermann (Franciszek Pieczka) celebrating

Pawlik was more concerned with the position of the props or the costume instead of conversing and shaping their roles. To Pszoniak it was the role of a lifetime, to Pawlik it wasn't.

“The audience was sitting on the stage because the entire theater had been transformed into the Revolutionary Tribunal. Here, a powerful voice and a [kind of] broad gesture were needed... Pawlik's charm disappeared in the feverish crowd. What consequences did this have for the play? Enormous, Danton was deprived of the strength [for both the audience and actors] to believe that he posed a deadly serious threat to the revolution. And this lack bothered me terribly...”

4. How did it become political then?

As I have previously mentioned, it was a slow, steady process. Even Wajda himself didn't think much of the play; it was the audience that began the change.

As the first example, Pszoniak recalls a scene when Eleonore comes in with tea but not sugar—in the audience at first only a few laughing, but gradually along with the many performances it turned into the whole audience cackling. The play was exhibited just when a time of increasing problems with sugar supplies began in Poland (food stamps for sugar were introduced).

Pszoniak admitted that the cast would often laugh along with the audience. It seemed almost absurd—a tragic play blending with the real world.

When it comes to Pszoniak himself in that time, the more he played the role, the more it felt like “punching the air.” Instead of having a genuine conflict, he had no support, no reference point in Pawlik as Danton or the audience. For the role to have meaning, to be something, it all had to be a matter of life and death. His co-actor was slipping into comedic grotesque while playing the second main role.

"The success of the play was huge, but the audience was eager to read the play [only] in the context of political allusions. (…) The audience felt that something was happening [on and off stage], (…) the tension grew."

The audience's reaction seemed to be a direct answer to the Danton shown on stage. Instead of a political opponent, there stood a sad, tired victim of the committee who seems completely and utterly innocent, all his words said with a kind of saddened charm (doesn't that remind you of a certain film Wajda made later?).

5. What of the other actors?

Here is where I have the least information. If anyone has any more sources of information, actor memoirs, etc., feel free to reblog this post with additional info or simply contact me about it so I could make Part 2. :]

The cast.

I have to tell you something shocking... Wajda is capable of giving actual, normal characterization to secondary characters (gasp, thunderstrike, wolf howling).

Or perhaps that was just the actor/Zygmunt Hübner (I guess we'll never know).

The most information I could gather was about Saint-Just (played by the excellent Władysław Kowalski).

Based off the limited amount of reviews I could gather, he was a positive character in general. Described as “a man gifted with exceptional warmth and [someone] unconditionally devoted to his cause” or “full of raw passion."

AND HE GIVES MAXIME FLOWERS IN THIS VERSION AS WELL, EXCEPT IN THIS ONE ROBESPIERRE (KIND OF) SMILES!

I couldn't find much on Eleonore, Louise, or Lucille, though I've searched and searched for a few days. All I could find is that the actresses were excellent—that is, unfortunately, no source of any relevant information. Frankly speaking, since Wajda, in kind words, doesn't excel at writing women, I don't have much faith in their characterization on the director's part.

Camille played Łukaszewicz is usually called a “complicated youth"—that is, of course, an opinion—or “spontaneous in reflexes"—that's a bit better of a description. As you can see, I am limited by the fact the play isn't available, and I must depend on biased or subjective sources.

Worried Camille Desmoulins (Olgierd Łukaszewicz) - I do think this Camille looks quite nice.

6. And did the critics like it? Was it well directed?

In short, it was a very, very liked play by both the critics and the audience. It ran for 5 years; it ended around 1980, when many of the actors simply left Poland.

About critics and reviews written by them: What surprised me immensely is the fact that most available reviews (written before the release of the film ‘Danton’) of the play weren't anti-Robespierre. The play is often described as something of a moral discussion, something for the viewer to assess, a work that doesn't suggest one solution to understand the conflict, or revolution (in other words, a great play).

A thing I've noticed is that along with time, the descriptions of the main characters seem to change. Danton—in earliest reviews described as “absolutely repulsive," then later as a tragic man, someone who adores life. Robespierre—in earliest reviews described as an absolute “marble statue," an idealist, someone pure, then in later reviews as just a fanatic.

7. What about Wajda? Did he change the text much? What about the scenography?

I was surprised to learn that Wajda absolutely could make a good, Przybyszewska-accurate play.

From all I could find, there is not much I can accuse Wajda of when it comes to ‘The Danton Case’ stage adaptations. It was made very well. What most likely contributed to the later change in people's mentality when met with the play is the fact that the audience was sort of a part of the performance. How? Like this:

“It [the play] takes place on a stage placed in front of the audience; on the actual stage and in the rest of the audience sit in rows of chairs rising upwards. Everything encompassed by the scenography is one theater. This played out brilliantly in the second parts, in the beautifully composed group scenes, where the audience not only looks at the stage but is drawn into it as an extra audience at the hearings of the revolutionary tribunal.”

And

“Wajda made "The Danton Case" as if against himself—against his previous self: he gave up on visual effects, music, and symbolism. He built a spectacle—a spectacle indeed!—raw and beautiful. (…) During the (…) presentation of "The Danton Case," seats for viewers were also installed on the stage, which was fortunately spacious, the audience surrounds the actors, the actors are among the audience, on the balcony, in the passages.”

If Danton or Robespierre were so close to the audience, I think it really did influence the people's opinion of it later on. Pawlik was terrified, jumping like a fish out of water from one audience member to the other, and there was Pszoniak, white and still under his shroud just a few meters away. That did certainly change the performance's reception.

8. Where can I watch this?!

As I have mentioned here: the play isn't available online, but most certainly is somewhere in the archives (confirmed by Pszoniak), when it was supposed to have a TV debut the martial law was introduced, and a few years later everyone seemed to have forgotten about it.

So, erm… Who's raiding the archives with me? (By the way, fragments of the play exist online, but only 10-20 minute excerpts, so if I find the time, I'll try to track them down.).

Sources:

Books:

Aktor. Wojciech Pszoniak w rozmowie z Michałem Komarem, Wydawnictwo Literackie 2009;

Maciej Karpiński, Pszoniak, Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe Warszawa 1976;

Małgorzata Terlecka-Reksnis, Pszoniak. Fragmenty, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie 2024

Photos used and play reviews (pardon the rhyme):

http://encyklopediateatru.pl

#wojciech pszoniak #frev #pszoniacology #wojtekspierre #sprawa dantona #the danton case #stanislawa przybyszewska #stanisława przybyszewska #the french revolution

34 notes · View notes

blondie20000 · 2 hours ago

Text

This was a very good read. Really good comparisons, going into detail and depth. I agreed with most of the points that were made.

I watched Monsters first and L&O afterwards and gosh L&O was so much better. Monsters was a mess. The oversexualising, how toned down the parents were and the portrayal of the brothers especially Lyle was awful. I understand Monsters wanted to convey a show with multiple perspectives wanting the viewers to decide who the monster is but the idea was poorly executed leaving viewers confused and unsure on who the monster is making you question on the show's purpose. I am so relieved I did research while watching Monsters watching the real life trial and interviews so that way I wasn't manipulated by the show into believing the media's image of the brothers. I will be honest if I never did any research on the case and just watched Monsters I probably would have gone away thinking the brothers were liars the show didn't convey them in a positive light as the tumblr post stated Monsters portrayed them as spoilt, unlikeable annoying brats.

L&O on the other hand was more respectful and faithful yes it did have some inaccuracies but the overall storytelling was so much better. It has been approved by the real life Lyle, Robert Rand, Hazel (Erik's juror) etc.

Way I summarise it Monsters is for the looks, the glamour, the music, the acting (Despite the bad storytelling I can't fault the actors they acted their ass off in this show) Cooper's 35 min episode was just wow so raw and so real I agree it felt like a conversation not a dramatised Hollywood film doing all that in one take just damm. Again despite the script Monsters did visually look amazing the costumes, the set everything it had so much potential if it weren't for Ryan Murphy *Sighs* then I shouldn't be surprised given his other shows they are all the same. They were the wrong writers to tackle this story at least Dick Wolf was respectful and from seeing Wolf's other shows you know it will be a good court drama the building of the case, unravelling the story, the witnesses it was all good to watch.

When someone asks me about the Menendez brothers I will recommend Law and Order. The show needs more recognition!!! If they want to watch Monsters I will advise to have knowledge beforehand that way you won't be roped into the BS story they are trying to sell to you and I guess enjoy the entertainment I can't deny Monsters had some entertaining moments and yes I'm still vibing to Milli Vanili 😅😅

Law and order VS Monsters. Why L&O worked by monsters didn’t

Introduction:

After rewatches, brainstorming, and discussions with others, I have finally decided what is truly the biggest issue with Monsters: The Erik and Lyle Menendez story. No, it’s not the inaccuracies or the incest undertones (although both are a real problem). However, multiple factors hinder this show’s potential as a fresh and unique telling of the Menendez Brothers case. To exhibit this, I will be comparing this show to the much more accurate and much better-written Menendez brothers dramatization, and that is Law and Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders, a Law and Order spin-off that premiered in 2017. It’s far from perfect, has its fair share of inaccuracies, and suffers from pacing issues. But it’s still far better executed than Monsters and the best out of the five Menendez dramatizations.

This will not be a usual review. Instead, I will compare and contrast the two shows and explain why Law and Order worked and Monsters did not from a pure storytelling perspective. I will break down this comparison into several sections, including plot, subplots, characterization, character development, structure, conflict, abuse allegations, sexual topics, purpose, and overall storytelling.

Just a heads up, I will not compare the characters to their real-life counterparts unless relevant (for example, I address how Monsters wrote Erik’s sexuality and compare it to the actual Erik’s sexuality). In addition, I will not fact-check the inaccuracies in either show; I will look at each show as just that: two series inspired by the same case.

Plot:

(I will keep this brief since this is just a synopsis of both shows)

Both shows take inspiration from the real-life Menendez murders. On August 20th, 1989, Jose and Kitty Menendez were shot dead in their Beverly Hills home. Their two sons, Erik, 18, and Lyle, 21, Menendez, at first deny having anything to do with their parent's murders; however, eventually, the investigation leads back to the brothers being the perpetrators. The brothers eventually admit guilty to killing their parents and, during their infamous trial, make graphic allegations of physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of both of their parents. However, they claimed they killed their parents in a state of panic, thinking their parents would kill them first to avoid the family secret from getting out. Despite these disturbing allegations and a mistrial, both brothers were sentenced to life in prison at their second trial in 1996; they are still currently incarcerated.

Both series turn the actual case into a dramatization; despite being based on the same event, both stories use different plots to tell a dramatized story.

In Law and Order, the main plot is Leslie Abramson’s (Edie Falco) goal of trying to win the Menendez case. Still, along the way, she deals with her issues, such as adopting a baby, disagreements with her husband Tim (Chris Bauer), her problems with her parents, and her growing bond with Erik Menendez (Gus Halper) and Lyle Menendez (Miles Gaston Villanueva). Law and Order is a franchise that consists of police procedural and legal drama; this spin-off Law and Order series, in particular, is being told through the perspective of Leslie, she is the main character here, and the show is about the Menendez Murders is mainly about the behind the scenes drama between the cops, lawyers and legal system surrounding it.

On the other hand, Monsters aims to create a Rashomon effect about the Menendez case. The Rashomon effect is "a storytelling technique and a phenomenon that describes how people can have different perspectives on the same event." An example would be the film “Elephant,” a 2003 movie loosely based on the Columbine massacre. The film follows the lives of different characters doing their daily routine before the massacre happens at school. Monsters includes perspectives from Dr Oziel (Dallas Roberts), Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), Erik (Cooper Koch), Dominick Dunne (Nathan Lane), Jose Menendez (Javier Bardem), and Kitty Menendez (Chloe Sevigny), for example. We (the audience) are supposed to explore their different viewpoints regarding this case; by the end, the audience should conclude who the “real monsters” are.

Both plots are unique in their own right. Before both shows, the only dramatizations of this case were through TV movies: A Killing in Beverly Hills, Honor Thy Mother and Father, and Blood Brothers. All three movies were A to Z stories of the case (before the killing, the killings, spending spree, jail time, and trial) that don’t stand out independently (except Blood Brothers with its ‘Kitty haunting Erik’ thing). Law and Order is a legal drama, and Monsters is a show with multiple perspectives. However, as I will explain, Law and Order had a more polished plot. Despite some pacing issues, it understands its end goal and does better at getting to the show's purpose.

Subplots

A subplot is a secondary plot that acts as a support story for the main story. By the end, the subplot is supposed to enhance and connect to the main plot. Some L&O subplots include Leslie and her husband struggling to adopt a baby, Lyle and his ex Jamie (Jamie Nobel) getting back together, Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) reputation and job as a judge, and infighting between the Menendez (Jose’s) and Anderson's (Kitty’s) families. Some subplots in Monsters include Erik becoming infatuated with another inmate (and trust me, I will get to that), Lyle and Norma Novelli’s (Natalie Taylor Gray) phone calls, and Dominick Dunne’s anger with the justice system after his daughter's killer was given manslaughter instead of first degree murder. Overall, the subplots in Law and Order do what a subplot should do to enhance the story. Even the unimportant subplots go somewhere; for example, at one point early in the series, Lyle is conversing with his lawyer, Jill Lansing (Julianne Nicholson). At one point in the conversation, she mentions her daughter wanting a baby brother, but Jill doesn’t want to give her one.

Lyle, in response, encourages Jill to give her one by saying, “Little brothers are the best.” Lyle then gushes about Erik and how happy he was and still is to have him around. This moment builds Lyle’s character by establishing how much Erik means to Lyle but also later sets up Jill’s exit at the end of the series when she decides not to represent Lyle in the second trial. She explained that while she still cares for Lyle, she felt like she missed out on her daughter growing up because she had spent so much time working on the case for the past three years. This is another issue I had with Monsters; it would introduce plots that lead to nothing significant. While not precisely a subplot, in episode 2 of Monsters, Erik mentions a new girl he’s seeing to his friend Craig Cignarelli (Charlie Hall). This girlfriend is most likely Noelle Terlesky, a girl the real-life Erik was seeing at the time of his arrest. Anyways, after this mention, she’s never seen in the show or mentioned by Erik again. It felt like the writers only mentioned her because she was an actual person in this case, but they had no real plans for her (something I will mention later). It makes me wonder why Erik would mention her if she wasn’t going to do anything in the story. As stated before, Monsters would introduce certain subplots or characters that wouldn’t do anything long-term for the plot. Completely stripping away the point of a subplot, which is supposed to create conflict, develop a character, and add depth to the main story, but the subplots in Monster failed to do that.

For example, let’s compare the subplot between Erik and Tony's (Brandon Santana) subplot in Monsters vs Judge Weisburg’s subplot in Law and Order. In episode 3, Erik becomes infatuated with another inmate at the LA County Jail who also seems to like Erik, such as staring at him when he isn’t looking and helping Erik get dimes. Later, they’re seen working out together, and Tony brings up the fling to Erik; Erik denies being gay, although he did question his orientation at one point. Later, Erik and Tony are the only ones in the jail shower, and they shower seductively in front of each other. The subplot seems to be leading somewhere, such as a hookup or romance between the two, but no. Two episodes later, we learn from Erik that Tony was moved to another jail. That’s it. No moment shows them hooking up or having a “what are we?” conversation about their little fling. Erik mentions missing Tony to Dr Vicary (Gil Ozeri) in episode 7 (which, btw why would Vicary's first response to that be "Miss the sex?" LMAOOOO), but this subplot has no conclusion. There’s no epiphany moment for Erik and his sexuality; this subplot did nothing for the plot.

Let’s compare this to Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) subplot in Law and Order. Judge Weisburg, at first, is portrayed as a fair and unbiased judge. He has his banter in court with Leslie before the Menendez trial, but it’s not shown that he has a particular issue with her. However, as the series progresses, he gets a lot of bad press because of the outcome of the Rodney King trial. His reputation as a judge is beginning to crumble, and he’s afraid that not getting a conviction in the Menendez case will be the beginning of the end for his career as a judge with election season coming up. The negative press explains why he becomes more harsh to Leslie during the trial and sabotages the second trial by not allowing any abuse evidence. Even though he is an antagonist in the story, his subplot

Gives his actions a motivation

Develops Weisburg and Leslie's character

It amplifies the plot by causing Leslie a conflict during the second trial (his actions lead to the brother's conviction).

Law and Order did a better job of leading its subplots somewhere, giving them all a conclusion and enhancing the show's main plot, while Monsters did not. The biggest issue with Erik and Tony’s subplot, in particular, is not the nude scene or the ethics of the writing of Erik’s sexuality, but the fact that you can take this subplot out and nothing would have changed. Nothing would’ve been gained or lost; it doesn’t develop Erik’s character, enhance the main plot, or raise any stakes. If Weigburg’s subplot were taken out, it would have taken away Weisburg’s and Leslie’s character development, not given Weisburg a motive, and it wouldn't have given Leslie a conflict for the second trial. A good subplot gives the main plot layers and adds complexity to the story and characters, but monsters don’t seem to know what to do with their subplots.

Characterization

Law and Order and Monsters both have characters inspired by the real-life people involved in the Menendez case. Of course, we have the Menendez family, Leslie, and Jill, but both projects also include Pam Bozanich, Lyle’s prosecutor; Detective Zoller, the lead detective in the case; Judge Weisburg, the judge for both Menendez trials; Dr. Oziel Erik’s psychiatrist who he confessed to in October 1989, Judalon Smyth, Oziel’s lover who eventually told the police about the brother's crime and members of the brothers extended family such as their aunts, uncles, and cousins. In both shows, their roles seem to be drastically different.

For one, in Law and Order, Pam Bozanich (Elizabeth Reaser) is a recurring character, but she still has her own story arc and character development. In law and order, she was the prosecutor in the McMartin trial. During the show's events, we learn that she failed to get a conviction during that trial. Still, she wants to desperately prove that she’s a reasonable prosecutor to the District Attorney’s Gil Garcetti (MArk Moses). Eventually, the DA is convinced to give her the Menendez trial, and Pam, thinking about her reputation, is desperate to get a conviction during the trial. Unfortunately for her, she doesn’t, and the DA takes her off the second trial, much to her dismay. Despite this, Pam develops a dislike for Leslie, so she doesn’t seem to mind being taken off the second trial. She said she’d rather eat glass than spend another hour in a room with Leslie.

Pam Bozanich (Milana Vayntrub) is a character in Monsters; however, she takes on a much smaller role. She only shows up towards the end of the series when the trial begins, but she doesn’t have much of a role despite being a key figure in the Menendez case. This could be because of the two series' different premieres. Law and Order is a legal drama, and she is an antagonist to Leslie’s protagonist there, so it’s understandable why she takes a more significant role there than in Monsters.

Still, given that Monsters is a show about multiple perspectives, I think the show could’ve benefited from an episode about how she looked at the murders. Dominick Dunne was just a gossip columnist in the show and real life and didn’t know the brothers personally, yet he gets so much screen time dedicated to his perspective on things.

I had another issue with this show: despite wanting to explore multiple perspectives, it rarely gives time to explore the perspectives of characters who knew the brothers personally, such as their aunts, uncles, cousins, partners, and friends. I think an episode where both sides of their families are discussing their perspectives on what led to the murders would’ve been a great episode idea. Instead, their extended family members are reduced to background characters only added because the writers felt they had to add them because of their real-life counterparts. Even if the writers wanted to focus more on the immediate Menendez family, I still think members of their extended family could have worked as minor characters. Minor characters can be just as important as the main characters sometimes; if written right, they can add depth to the plot, help develop the main character, and help move the main plot forward. Unfortunately, it seemed like monsters didn’t know how to use their minor characters while also focusing on the Menendez family's story and different perspectives on what led to the murders.

On the other hand, Law and Order used their minor characters to move the plot, resolve conflicts, and develop characters. For example, minor characters Andy (Davi Santos) and Diane (Ashley Lenz) show up to tell Leslie and Jill about Erik and Lyle, revealing to them they were being molested when they were younger, and later testify for the defense about it on the stand during the trial. Even though they don't have much to do with the overall story, their testimonies and what they tell Leslie and Jill give the defense the corroboration they need for the brothers' sexual abuse claims in court. Diane's reveal to Jill and Leslie happens before Lyle admits Jose also molested him, so it also makes way for Lyle to be honest about his abuse from his father finally.

To avoid this getting too long, I will only stick to the Menendez family and their characterization since they are the main focus of both shows (besides Leslie in Law and Order, but I feel it would be an unfair comparison to compare L&O Leslie to Monsters Leslie). But I will say that the Law and Order show does a better job at characterizing not only the main characters but also its recurring, minor, and antagonistic characters. All of the characters, including the antagonistic ones, are well-written. They all have unique personalities, are realistic and relatable, and are developed throughout the series. The main characters are also likable, making the audience want to root for them. I can’t say the same for the characters in Monsters. The characters were not relatable, developed, likable, or even realistic. They seemed more like caricatures instead of actual well-written characters.

Lyle Menendez as a character in Monsters

I won’t beat around the bush; I don’t like the character of Lyle Menendez in Monsters. Lyle is written as a fly-off-the-handle, bratty, arrogant, self-centered, spoiled, disrespectful, foul-mouthed diva that makes him unlikeable. It’s not like this happens when he’s on an adrenaline high or frustrated, but all of the time. In this series, he curses out and yells at his parents multiple times, yells at kids who are trick or treating, yells at a service workers, threatens Dr Oziel, is rude to Leslie (Ari Graynor), makes faces while his brother is testifying, doesn’t seem to care about Erik’s feelings most of the time, and is more concerned about dimes and his hairpiece over the fact that his life is on the line.

As stated before, Monsters was aiming for a Rashomon effect of storytelling. If that was the case, I could understand situations where Lyle is being a dick. I can see people like Oziel or his parents looking at him as a little bastard, but I'm supposed to take his attitude at face value because this storytelling isn’t made clear to the audience. Lyle, in this show, has almost no redeeming qualities. We hardly see a lighter side to his character; the bratty diva thing could have given Lyle’s character more depth and complexity had we seen a more sensitive side to him. Some moments show that he cares for Erik a lot, such as during their reunion at the jail, he advises Erik that he can’t just drink milk in the jail and he frequently tells Erik that he loves him. But the problem is that these are just that, moments. Lyle doesn’t get more layers to his character to balance out his negative qualities. Despite not saying it verbatim, Nicholas Chavez has implied that he took issue with Lyle's character, such as saying in interviews that he was written as the least sympathetic brother. But because he couldn’t do much about Lyle’s characterization, he wanted to play him as someone who acts the way he acts because he’s a profoundly hurt person wearing a mask to shield that hurt. I can see what he means on my second watch of the show. In episode 4, Lyle gets vulnerable about his abuse of Leslie and Jill. In that episode, it’s like Lyle is an entirely different person. You see that he still feels the need to protect his father’s image, and he feels the guilt and shame of being molested but also molesting Erik himself. There, we see just how much he loves Erik. While he wants to protect his father’s image, he also wants to safeguard Erik by not revealing this embarrassing and shameful encounter. We begin to understand that Lyle acts the way he acts because the root of that is insecurity, and his abuse is the main reason why he acts like a child because he’s still mentally a child himself. This episode would’ve been the perfect time to develop Lyle’s character, but the next time he’s on screen, he goes back to being a bratty dick. There’s no personal growth, no change in his morals, and no lesson learned from his moment of vulnerability. As a character, Lyle seems to stick to the “Status Quo is God” trope, where things always go back to the way things were before. It's like the writers didn’t understand the importance of character development.

Despite this, I do have to praise Nicholas’s performance. He is genuinely entertaining to watch and has excellent comedic timing. I am unsure if the writers intended to make his lines as funny as they were, but I mostly laughed when he was on screen. In addition, I can see that he studied the real-life Lyle Menendez. During the trial and court hearing scenes, he’s spot on with Lyle's mannerisms, facial expressions, and speaking. He even got Lyle’s child-like way of speaking when he was being directly examined by Jill down to a T. Unfortunately, his talent was wasted entirely.

(Real-life Lyle’s wife was also SO excited for him to play Lyle; what a waste, lmao)

Lyle Menendez as a character in Law and Order

Law and order Lyle is a bit more tricky to describe. Because Leslie is the main character, we don’t spend as much time with the brothers as in Monsters. But we see in Lyle that he’s confident, smooth, overly protective of his brother, naive, empathetic, and puts on a tough exterior even though he’s hurt and secretly emotional. He still has his flaws and moments of being obnoxious. He’s rude to the waitress and his bodyguards and is actively lying to his family, friends, and partner about his involvement in killing his parents. That said, his character flaws are justified from a storytelling perspective. He’s lying because he doesn’t want to hurt his loved ones, and his rudeness reflects how he was groomed at home, which we later see through flashbacks and his opening up about his family life. His rude moments can be chalked up to him mimicking his father; after his rude remark to the waitress, he says, “My dad always gave waitresses a hard time.” From the first episode during his police interview and what Jamie says to him at the hotel, it's clear how much Lyle admires his father and wants to make him proud. In episode 3, Dr. Conte (Raphael Sbarge), Lyle explains to Leslie and Jill that even though Lyle was sexually abused by his father, he still brags about how great of a man his father was and claims to love him; he’s doing something many survivors of abuse do, and that’s idolizing his abuser. So his rude moments are just him reflecting on his father, who he idolizes. This also explains to the audience why he didn’t want to reveal his father's abuse and why he felt so betrayed by him when Erik told him the abuse was still happening. While close to his father, through a flashback narrated by Donovan (Ben Winchell), it’s revealed that Lyle was upset by his father cheating on his mother, and we see multiple moments that show how deeply Lyle loves Erik. This also adds more depth to Lyle’s character. Even with his closeness to his father, he still needs to protect everyone in his family. This plants seeds for the brother's eventual allegations of what led up to them killing their parents. By the end of the series, Lyle has grown from the experience of his parents' murders and the trial. While still putting on a tough exterior, he has learned to be comfortable showing his more sensitive side and more open when expressing his feelings to Erik. At the beginning of the series, he seems to be unbothered by his parents' deaths and brushes off Erik's emotional hysteria. Still, in the second to last episode, he can tell Erik how much he misses his parents. While sticking to the main status quo of his character, Lyle's character still shows excellent character development. He still has most of his main character traits, but he also grows and learns from his experiences, and his sensitive side gives more depth to his character to show that he is a complex individual.

Even though I wish we had more time to explore Lyle’s character, his character here is way better written, realistic, likable, and relatable than his Monsters counterpart.

Erik Menendez as a character in Monsters:

As for Erik’s characterization, it's an unpopular opinion, but Erik was pretty unlikable in this show, too. I think the hurt man episode and people being biased towards Cooper have clouded judgment towards Erik’s character here. But in this show, Erik: Gets aggressive with Craig after Craig asks about the murders, yells and curses at Kitty for misspelling a word (a word he also misspelled too, might I add), and continues to scold her, blames his brother for the murders multiple times, yells at Leslie, says he should’ve killed Lyle too, robbed multiple houses, is rude to Oziel, doesn't care that his mom is spazzing in the kitchen, and is the one who came up with the murder plan. Watching this show, I got the opinion that Erik was bratty, passive-aggressive, sneaky, spoiled, and the mastermind behind the killings. Yes, he is more likable than Lyle, but not enough to think he's anything besides a disrespectful spoiled brat. I could say he’s more emotional and feels more guilty than Lyle. In The first episode, Erik is seen as being overly emotional over his parent's deaths, having near mental breakdowns and experiencing nightmares. But it's like his emotions have wholly dropped after the Oziel confession. There’s a lack of complexity in Erik’s character. I left the show looking at him like a toned-down Lyle. To echo what I said earlier, I can see someone like Dr. Oziel and his parents view him as a bratty kid, but with the lack of a narrator or establishing the story’s goal, I am supposed to accept that Erik is just as bratty as his brother.

Erik also comes across as quite a jerk. When Craig tries to pry a confession out of him, Erik, for some reason, tries to intimate him. The show does not clarify why Erik got aggressive like this; it makes him seem like a passive-aggressive cold-blooded psycho. He doesn’t develop from this either; in the last episode, he pushes Lyle against the wall and says he should’ve killed him, too. Yes, the argument could be made that Lyle had been picking on him before this, but it shows Erik's lack of character development by showing that he is still an aggressive jerk.

However, Cooper Koch's outstanding performance also saves Erik's characterization. The Hurt Man episode was excellent. Not only does Erik lay out his abuse at the hands of his father, but we also explore other things about Erik. Such as his complex feelings towards his parents, his idolization of Lyle, his confusing sexuality, and the root of his insecurities. Cooper does a fantastic job of displaying Erik’s emotions; one of the best things about this episode is that it feels like a real conversation between two people, not an exaggerated Hollywood script. Leslie tries to comfort Erik when he’s tearing himself down, and he keeps interrupting Leslie while she tries to comfort him. It is so natural to have a real-life conversation when someone is trying to reassure you when you are venting and vice versa. Like Nicholas, he’s also spot on when portraying the real-life Erik when necessary. At times, he even sounds like the honest Erik; it's almost eerie. Cooper is also entertaining, “Lyle, is that my toothbrush?” And “That’s where I keep it cold!” It never fails to make me laugh.

And yes, I am going to address the elephant in the room. The writers were awful in how they addressed Erik’s sexuality. I know he denies being gay multiple times in the show; however, between the Tony subplot and Pam telling Dominick that Erik was having oral sex with other inmates (they show this, too, by the way). Lyle and Jose making comments about Erik (allegedly) having sex with Craig, the average viewer might come out of this show thinking Erik is gay. I know the real Erik said he was confused about his sexuality, but it’s like Ryan took that one statement and ran with it. He ignores that Erik also said he did like girls and eventually had intercourse with girls and the fact that Erik did have multiple girlfriends. Yes I know there is an acknowledgment of Tammi, but that came towards the show's closing. There is a way to explore Erik’s sexuality from a storytelling point of view. Episode 5 did a decent job of addressing Erik’s confusing sexuality, and I wouldn’t have minded it if that was the only incident of it. But the sheer amount of gay subplots and jokes with Erik seemed more like a fetish as opposed to exploring how the sexual abuse confused the real-life Erik. Story aside, it feels offensive to the actual Erik.

Erik Menendez as a character in Law and Order:

Again, in Law and Order, we don’t spend that much time with the brothers. However, what we do see of Erik is that he’s very close to completely breaking down mentally. He’s outwardly more sensitive than Lyle and cries quite a bit in the show. He looks up to Lyle, calls him for everything, and loves and misses his parents. After their deaths, he focuses full time on tennis to make his father proud. He even recalls Jose encouraging him from the stand (although Lyle corrects him by reminding him that Jose was yelling at him). Erik seems closer to his mom; he tells his girlfriend that his mom would’ve been proud of him for having a girlfriend because she always gave him deadlines to get one. Kitty, in flashbacks, is shown as very sensitive and also cries often. In a way, Lyle is taking after his mom and Erik his mom. Even before the audience knows that he killed his parents, we see him close to breaking multiple times and know that he’s struggling to accept the fact that his parents were dead. Erik is also feeling the heat from guilt; his mental break isn't just over his parent's death but the fact that he was responsible for it. So, it is justifiable to the audience when he confesses to Craig and Dr Oziel. With Dr. Oziel, Erik only confessed to him because the only person he wanted to talk about it with, his brother, kept blowing him off, so when he confesses, it shows that Erik did it out of desperation and under the impression that he would be safe in doing so. It doesn’t make him seem sneaky, but he can’t take it anymore. He isn’t passive-aggressive or a jerk when Craig tries to pry a confession out of him. He still gaslights Craig but tries to brush it off like Craig is crazy instead of getting aggressive with him. It is explained here, though. He finally got it off his chest after the guilt was eating him alive, and after the drama with Dr Oziel and Lyle, he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore with anyone but them. Erik also develops by the end; even though he sticks to his same emotional self, he learns that it’s unhealthy to keep his emotions bottled up. Because his confession to Dr Oziel leads to his arrest, it stands to reason why he would feel cautious about being honest with his feelings. He also doesn’t reveal his abuse to Dr Oziel, but he learns to trust Leslie and is entirely open with her to avoid going on death row. Sure, it doesn’t stop him from shedding a few tears, but his honesty and relationship with Leslie develop him from someone close to breaking at any moment to someone in touch with his emotions and learning how to express them. I do prefer Cooper as Erik, but I still loved Gus’s portrayal and I think Law and Order did a better job at matching how the real-life Erik was feeling at the time.

Jose and Kitty Menendez as characters in Monsters:

Before I start, I will say regarding performance and chemistry alone; I prefer Javier and Chloe. They are great with their material, and I think they capture Jose and Kitty's real-life energy. Javier, like Jose, is legitimately intense and intimidating, and Chloe nailed Kitty’s “I hate my kids; they ruined my marriage and life” spirit.

Now, in both dramatizations, they take a smaller role. However, their roles are different in each series. In Monsters, Jose and Kitty are more characterized. For one, it explores the issues in their marriage, such as Jose’s affairs, his telling Kitty he doesn't love her and only wants her to give him children, and Kitty’s frustration with how he treats her and her loneliness.

Kitty states multiple times that she hates her kids. She is characterized as a sad, pathetic, bitter, and insecure woman. We learn about Kitty's trauma from her abusive childhood, which explains why she treats her sons the way she does. Kitty’s resentment toward her sons was explained; she felt like she gave up her whole life for Jose only for him to treat her like garbage later, cheat on her, not love her, and pay more attention to their kids over her. Not that it justifies any abusive behavior, but it adds more layers to her character and actions. We also learn that she’s turned to alcohol to deal with her emotions, as seen when she reaches for the wine bottle for help after spazzing out in the kitchen.

Jose also has his fair share of trauma. He is characterized as a stern, strict, cunning, savvy, perfectionist, prideful, and abusive man. We also learn that he also has his fair share of trauma; he reveals to Kitty that his mother used to molest him as a kid, and when Lyle calls out his physical punishments to him and Erik as abuse, Jose brushes it off. Stating that his father used to hit him harder and that his sons' out-of-control behavior (the robberies, Lyle’s Princeton suspension) was the result of him not hitting them hard enough. This does not excuse his actions, but it explains his mentality.

Now that’s out the way, here is my issue with their characters: The show seemed to take more time to make the audience believe that Erik and Lyle were spoiled and bratty than they did, showing how scary Jose and Kitty were in Erik and Lyle (and others') perspectives. The moments that do show them as tyrants are limited and rushed quickly. I feel like the episodes that showcased last week’s events were rushed. I didn’t even mind the light-hearted moments, such as the Christmas moment, not because I felt terrible for them but because the audience would understand that no one is a Monster all the time. It also showed how the brothers could still love their parents even after all they did to them. Even the real Lyle said during his cross-examination that he and his father had plenty of good times.

Despite that, they are more sympathetic and complex than Erik and Lyle are. The brothers claimed they feared their parents, but I never got that feeling. How the show presents it, they came across as more strict, harsh, inconvenient, and demanding than they did someone to fear. It seemed more like two bratty kids who killed their parents because they resented them than people they killed out of fear and desperation. The deep horrors of how they allegedly treated their kids are only left to the imagination. If Ryan wanted the audience to decide who the “real” monsters were, he failed at showing just how monstrous they were to their boys (I will elaborate on this when we get to the abuse section).

Jose and Kitty as characters in Law and Order:

Jose and Kitty, in law and order, are explored even less than the brothers were. I’ve already explained why (the show is told from Leslie’s POV). What we see of them is shown through flashbacks from the brothers and other relatives. We see that Jose is controlling, intimidating, a bully, powerful, and abusive. We also learn that Lyle really looks up to his father, and at the beginning of the series, he constantly talks about making his dad proud. There’s no character growth to Jose here because this is ultimately a story about Leslie. Even though I preferred Javier, Carlos was also great at embodying Jose. The real Jose was said to be scary and intimidating even to grown adults, and Carlos made me feel afraid of him.

On the other hand, Kitty is shown as what Lyle describes as a “basketcase,” and Erik tells his cousin Henry that she is “so unhappy.” Flashbacks and comments of Kitty show her as constantly breaking down crying, dependent on drugs, passive, and showing little interest in her boys. Kitty also doesn’t grow much character; we learn that Jose had an affair with her, and Lyle tells Donovan it destroyed her. It helps the audience understand why Kitty turned into a basketcase, not necessarily to feel bad for her but to understand her more. Again, I prefer Chloe over Lolita; she did a better job embodying Kitty’s “I hate my kids” energy, but it’s not Lolita’s fault. I think she did great with what she had, but she wasn’t exactly playing the real-life Kitty. Lyle even pointed out on Facebook that Kitty here wasn’t shown as scary and violent as she was in real life. Law and Order even had a moment where the boys reminisced on a funny moment with their parents and flashbacks where Lyle remembered good times with his parents. I think it handled showing that Jose and Kitty weren't awful all the time without humanizing them too much. By the end of the show, the audience has seen why the brothers feared their parents so much and why they felt like killing them was their only option but there are still moments that show the brothers still love them and had good times with them.

Despite the flaws, law and order made the audience hate Jose and Kitty better. I will talk about the abuse later, but Law and Order did a far better job showing just how Monstrous Jose and Kitty were, even though Monsters did develop their characters more. A criticism I often see towards Law and Order is that the brothers were too sympathetic and the Menendez family were one-dimensional, and I can understand that viewpoint. We spent way more time with Leslie and behind-the-scenes legal drama than with them and their parents, which is why it was tough to explain their characters. However, this is excused because this is a legal drama explained through Leslie's eyes, which explains why the brothers are more sympathetic here. Throughout the series, we see that she begins to care for them like they are her children; it’s how she views them, and everything she knows of Jose and Kitty is being told to her from the point of view of other people, including their victims. Hence, it stands to reason why (Jose and Kitty) are only looked at as vile and one-dimensional. From a pure story point of view, it makes perfect sense.

Character development:

Monster’s storytelling also suffers from little to no character development. By the end of the show, almost everyone stays the same as they were. Lyle is still obnoxious and rude, Erik is still bratty and aggressive, and Dominick is still a bitter journalist who takes his distrust of the legal system out on the brothers. It’s like everyone stayed at point A and didn’t learn anything from their experiences. Out of the significant characters, the only ones who got real development seemed to be Jose and Kitty. In episode 6, they are struggling with their marriage and seem to hate each other, but by the end of the episode they seem to work out their differences and have a happy marriage. But like….their personalities don’t seem to change or develop. Kitty still hates her kids and Jose is still a controlling tyrant. Good storytelling means developing their characters, it doesn’t mean that they should have a complete 180 with their personalities, but they should have learned something from their experiences that leads to a change in their flaws, morals, and actions. This is another example of the characters here being over the top and cartoony. It’s not just the hyperbolic personalities, but the fact that no one seems human enough to develop. Lyle throughout the whole show is an obnoxious prick who is always yelling and cursing. Episode 4 showed a more vulnerable and soft side to him, giving the audience the impression that he acts the way he does because the abuse stunted his growth and he’s still mentally a child himself. However, for the remainder of the episodes he doesn’t change. He’s still rude and obnoxious, he’s learned nothing from this experience and it takes away the impact of seeing his more vulnerable side. It’s another example of lazy and ineffective storytelling. The show seemed to want to stick to a certain status quo, not understanding that characters are allowed to change without becoming completely different people.

I won’t talk too much about the characterization since I’ve already talked about that. Law and Order did a great job at developing its characters. By the end, everyone has grown, learned, and evolved from being a part of this case. I will be using as an example since she is our main character here. By the end of the series, Leslie turned a whole new leaf from losing her case. By the end, Leslie is heartbroken that she lost her case and the fact that Erik and Lyle both get life sentences. However, we see her grow throughout the series. She stays her same fierce, brash, bold and confident self, however we see her more vulnerable side. She has issues with her parents, her mother passes away and she reconnects with her estranged father. In the midst of all this, she becomes a mother again and adopts a baby boy. Her new son, own issue with her parents and closeness with the brothers is a factor on why she became so passionate about their case and why she turned a new leaf after the second trial to focus on raising her son and working at a toy store. Of course her decision was because of her loss, but also because learning about the horrific abuse the brothers suffered made her appreciate family and want the best for all children. As a result of both, she understands the real impact of a healthy and normal family and not only wants to be there for her child but other people’s children.

Not only is there great development, but none of the protagonists are unlikable. Sure, they have their flaws, but it makes them come across as more complex and human. Even the antagonist characters (Weisburg, Detective Zoller, Pam, Gil Garcetti and David Conn) have their own subplots that fulfil the antagonistic role by having motivations behind their actions and having a foil for the antagonist that makes the audience question the protagonist. For example David Conn (Robin Thomas), as a part of the California DA office is assigned as the prosecutor in the second trial. Throughout the show, we see how desperate the DA office is for a conviction after losing the McMartin, Rodney King, and later OJ Simpson trial. After the OJ loss, the office is determined to convict the brothers. Later during the second trial, Conn reveals to the jury and the audience during his cross examination of Erik’s psychiatric in jail Dr. Vicary that Leslie had hand in altering Dr Vicary’s (Todd Weeks) notes about Erik’s view of his mother. While this a small example, it shows how smart the law and order team was with its writing and storytelling. Not even the antagonists are over the top and cartoony, but real relatable people with their own backstories, goals, and motivations that makes the audience understand their viewpoint.

Sexual/adult situations:

It’s no secret that monsters heavily sexualized the brothers. While I cannot praise Cooper and Nicholas’s performances enough, it’s clear that Ryan also cast them based on their looks and bodies. There are far too many scenes of them nude, shirtless, or in sexual situations, even when not necessary. I have no issues with nudity or sex scenes/suggestions in the media, but it was very excessive here. Law and Order had a scene of Erik’s girlfriend Noelle (Anna Osceola) teasing him with sex when he got out of jail. However, the most significant difference is context. Erik’s girlfriend teasing him made sense because she’s assumingly a young girl who wants to give her boyfriend a “gift” when he gets out of jail. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary, and it’s not “in your face,” so to speak. It’s subtle and not distracting, like the sexual moments between Oziel and Judalon. The over-sexualization was so bad that monsters included incest undertones between the brothers. In the second episode, Lyle kisses Erik on the mouth, and later, they dance seductively with each other at a party. Then, in episode 7, Dominick Dunne gives people his theories of the Menendez family and suggests that the real family secret was Erik and Lyle's incestuous relationship. The scene then cuts to Kitty catching the brothers in the shower together.

In Law and Order, one juror commented that Erik probably got his stories of sexual abuse from having sex with Lyle, which is a disgusting comment; it’s nowhere near as awful as Ryan deciding to showcase an incest scene between them. Even if it was Dominick Dunne’s imagination, I still don’t understand why it had to be shown. The juror's comment in Law and Order is met with disdain from the other jurors; unlike Monsters, the whole “brother incest” is brought up but not even entertained.

I will admit I laughed at the scene where an inmate sarcastically tells Lyle he’ll give him a dime if Lyle gives him head and Dr.Vicary’s “Miss the sex?” When Erik says he misses Tony, gave me a chuckle. If everything else weren’t so in your face and had the gross incest stuff, I wouldn’t have minded these moments so much. But the layers of over-sexualization, including sibling incest, showed (to me) what was on Ryan’s mind when he cast two good-looking 20-something-year-olds to play the brothers.

The abuse:

In Monsters, the brother's allegations of abuse weren’t shown like they should’ve been to get the point across. I’m going to start with Kitty. In real life, the brothers alleged that Kitty was also violent and abusive to them. We also know that she sexually abused them both. The show attempts to address that Kitty was also an abuser and not just an enabler. However, it is poorly executed, and there is not enough time to show that. The only incident of this is her raging out on her kids after they accuse her of trying to poison them, but just before that, we see them cussing her out and ganging up on her. It comes across that she is justified in her rage out, and considering her kids are sociopaths, her kids were being dicks to her, and she got frustrated. Add onto the fact that they just watched her spazz out on the kitchen floor unconcerned. So when she tells her therapist, “I hate my kids,” someone may think, “Well, they cuss her out, gang up on her, accuse her of poisoning them, and are thieves. I get why she hates them and feels like they ruined her life.” To make it worse, we see her kissing Erik on the head and calling Lyle “sweetheart” (we all know the real kitty would never lmao) and telling her therapist that she still feels the umbilical cord connecting them. It makes it seem like she has love for them, but their attitude makes her hate them. Even if I can give it the “this is Kitty’s perspective” excuse, as stated earlier, the show does a terrible job of providing more corroboration to the brother's perspective of the abuse they say they suffered and what led to them fearing their parents. In addition, the only incident of sexual abuse of hers that is shown is her looking at Erik’s penis to check for AIDS, but the show leaves out that she used to pop blisters on them (Erik was also much younger when this happened) and even then it’s seen as justified and not motivated by the real Kitty’s perverted nature. Before that, she and Erik were talking about how Erik could bring AIDS in the house because he isn’t using the condoms they bought (and they are aware of his sexual relationship with another boy). It makes it seem like Kitty was just a concerned mother instead of the pervert she was. Erik mentions Kitty sexually abusing Lyle in episode 5, but it’s wildly “blink and you’ll miss it,” and Lyle does not even talk about it. The naked pictures are shown in court, but it came after it was implied that Leslie coached the brothers to lie on the stand. However, the show spent more time showing that the brothers were rude brats who talked back to their parents instead of showing how vile Kitty could also be.

As for Jose, my issues are pretty much similar. We don’t see enough of him being abusive to his sons besides slapping, degrading, and yelling at them. Yes, it’s still abuse, but it's not abusive enough to make us hate his guts. If I recall correctly, the only incident that shows his sexual abuse was in episode 6, when he drags Erik to his room, and there’s a bunch of thumbs behind the door. Everything else about his sexual abuse of them is only talked about. I’m not saying they should’ve shown explicit rape scenes, but Law and Order was able to show the abuse of both parents that makes the audience hate them both. Jose, like Kitty, is seen as justifiably angry with his boys because of their burglaries and Lyle’s suspension in episode 6. Again, I understand this episode is his point of view, but I found myself understanding Jose’s frustration. Perhaps that’s what the writers were aiming for; they explored multiple perspectives and let the audience decide who the monsters were. Still, less time was dedicated to showing how monstrous Jose and Kitty were in the brother's eyes. Again, it suffers from telling and not showing.

Law and Order was able to show Jose and Kitty’s abuse without being explicit but also bad enough to make you hate them and sympathize with the brothers. Through flashbacks, we see that Kitty is negligent (how she handles Erik’s nightmares, ignoring Jose and bearing Erik), relies on pills and alcohol, keeps kiddy porn pictures of them, and that she also molests Lyle. It’s not explicit, but it’s clear what’s happening as it leaves little to the imagination. Jose, in these flashbacks, is also shown as abusive. Multiple times, he is seen striking fear into his boys, and the sexual abuse is not explicit, but it leaves little to the imagination of what is happening. By the end of the series, the audience has seen how disgusting and frightening Jose and Kitty are to their boys. Someone might say, “Well, the show is biased for the defense, so it will be in their favor. Monsters are trying to give multiple perspectives and letting the audience decide.” That’s true, but the writers took plenty of time to show how bratty and annoying Erik and Lyle were to others. But, there was barely any time spent showing the audience just how vile Jose and Kitty were from the perspectives of their boys. While I appreciated episodes 4 and 5, their telling their stories would not have been as impactful as showing their stories to the audience. The last episode of Law and Order was also better at addressing generational trauma. The last episode has Jose’s sister Marta (Constance Marie) and Kitty’s sister Joan (Molly Hagan) telling Leslie that they were abused as children, which shows the impact of generational curses but doesn't humanize them too much to forget their abuse.

Overall Storytelling:

Lastly,the storytelling is what makes Law and Order work but not Monsters. While the plot in Law and Order is about the Menendez case, the show sticks to the Law and Order formula by sticking to the legal drama that surrounds the case. The story, like any good story, has a beginning, middle, and end. Its storytelling is polished, shows instead of telling, well structured, has conflict, well developed characters and has a clear purpose and identity.

Beginning, middle, and end. The beginning of the story is the murders of Jose and Kitty Menendez and the investigators in the case trying to find the killers and ultimately their investigation leads them to the couple’s own two sons.

Middle: Erik and Lyle are arrested and adjust to life in jail. Meanwhile, the prosecution and defense are both building their case.

End: Both sides present their case during both of the brothers' trials. The defense, despite being the protagonist, loses the case and the brothers are sentenced to life in prison and Leslie turns a new leaf.

Polished and structured: As explained by the beginning middle and end, the storytelling in Law and Order is structured and clear. It’s organized in the kind of story it’s telling but also has important elements a well structured story needs like conflict and purpose.

Conflict: This is another reason why I feel like Law and Order dealt with the subplots better because they added to the story by adding conflict to drive the plot forward. As mentioned earlier, Judge Weisburg’s subplot at the end provided conflict for both him and Leslie. For him, the bad press gives him a conflict because he is desperate to get a conviction to keep his job and save his reputation. For Leslie, Weisburg’s desperation causes him to not allow any abuse evidence in the second trial. This causes her conflict because she struggles on how she’ll be able to argue her case without abuse evidence. The conflict here does what it’s supposed to do by creating tension, advancing the main plot forward, and once the story ends, the created closure.

Purpose: Lastly, the core thing that makes Law and Order better executed than Monster’s is its purpose. The show has an identity and knows exactly what message it is trying to send. For Law and Order, the purpose of the show is to showcase the corruption and unfairness of the legal system. To prove this point, it takes the real life Menendez murder case, a case that was a prime example of legal corruption and unfairness and dramatized it into a TV show. It makes sure to stick to the Law and Order format by being a legal and courtroom drama, as a result the brothers don’t get much attention, but they are still important as characters. Their testimony and allegations help build a case for the defense and their relationship with Leslie Abrahmson gives her character development.

Monsters like mentioned have a Ransom effect type of storytelling. The purpose of the Rashomon effect is supposed to show how multiple views of the same event can be interpreted in different ways and the contradictions that can arise from that. An example would be the 1970s sitcom “Good Times" episode “When there’s smoke”, after the couch catches on fire, the characters JJ, Michael and Thelma all tell Willona their story of what happened. Each story contradicts each other, making each narrator look favorable and the others look bad. In the end, it’s revealed that the character Penny is the one who lit the couch on fire after she tried to have a cigarette and dropped it on the couch after JJ says that he doesn’t like smokers. While this could have been a fresh and unique twist on dramatization of the Menendez brothers, the show drops the ball by failing to establish this. It’s not well structured, the timeline is off, the characters are not developed, it tells instead of shows, there’s a lack of proper conflict, and there’s no real purpose or identity for this show’s existence.

Structure and timeline: One big difference between Law and Order and Monsters storytelling is how it’s structured. Law and Order for one had a clear cut story beginning, middle, and end where Monster’s does not. To give it the benefit of the doubt, it follows the timeline of the actual crime. That being, the murders, the brothers shopping spree, the Dr. Oziel drama, their arrest, then revealing the abuse to build the case, the first trial being a hung jury, the second trial, and the brothers conviction. However, the timeline seems jumpy and unfocused. For example, we see some of the same plot points multiple times such as Lyle’s Princeton suspension. Lyle explains his Princeton suspension in episode 4, in this episode this is his side of the story. We see this same plot point again in episode 6, the episode that is supposed to be the perspective of Jose and Kitty. However, the timeline is confusing because by the time the Jose and Kitty perspective episode happens, it’s after the brothers are in jail and Jose and Kitty are dead. So who is exactly telling the story? Again I understand wanting to incorporate a Rashomon effect story but the timeline is jumpy and is not structured in a way that makes it clear to the audience that the story being told is how different people interpret things.

I mean, I’ve seen children’s shows write a better Rashomon effect story then this show has. One example I can think of is the cartoon “The powerpuff girls” in the episode “The Bare facts”, the Mayor of Townsville is kidnapped and blindfolded by the show’s main villain Mojo Jojo. The girls eventually save the mayor and take him back to his office, but the girls are giggling when they save him but he’s still blindfolded so he wants to know what’s so funny. When he is finally unblindfolded, he continues to ask the girls what’s so funny but they don’t want to tell him so they all change the subject by telling the story of how they found out he was kidnapped and how they rescued him. Each girl narrates the story from their perspective, but each account contradicts each other and is extremely hyperbolic. By the end, it is revealed that the girls were giggling about the fact that Mojo Jojo had stripped the mayor nude during the kidnapping and the girls were telling the mayor this story to avoid telling him the truth about why they were laughing.

This kind of storytelling concept could have worked with the Menendez story because there are alot of characters in this case that have different perspectives on what exactly happened. But the problem is the story makes no effort to let the audience know that this is the case, so when we see Erik and Lyle ganging up on their mom and cursing her out, the audience doesn't know that in this particular episode it is supposed to be Kitty and Jose’s perspective so we are supposed to their behavior at face value. There’s no narrator or anything else to indicate that this multiple perspectives show. If episode 1 had stayed exactly the way it is and had ended with Dr Oziel on the stand or talking to his wife, Judalon, a journalist, or Jill and Leslie explaining what he thinks happened, and every episode began or ended like that, I probably still wouldn’t be a fan of the show but at least I could understand the kind of storytelling. Unfortunately, it seems like the show did not know how to properly structure that kind of story it is telling and thus comes across as sloppy, confusing, and inconsistent.

Conflict: I’ve already touched on this in the subplots section, so I will keep this brief, Monsters includes very little conflict or tension for the story. Of course there are conflicts such as Judalon and Oziel’s drama and Dominick Dunne’s articles. But the conflicts don’t really do much to drive the plot in a unique way, but because they happened in real life. The show took many creative liberties when it came to the brothers' personalities but not when it came to plot points. The conflict between Leslie and David Conn was based on actual events, yet it was still highly dramatized enough to give the main plot a conflict and a resolution. Monsters, when it did have a conflict, didn't seem to know how to resolve it. Dominick Dunne’s storyline did not have an antagonist to foil his plans, and as a result the conflict created no tension and no flakes. This creates what’s called a forced conflict, or a conflict that’s added in just to create a conflict. In this show, it feels like Domonick Dunne’s gossip is added in just because Dominick was an actual figure, he was in the Law and Order show but he is reduced to a minor character. Ryan Murphy has stated that Domonick was heavily involved in the series because he was a key figure in how the public viewed the brothers. This can be a valid point, however Dominick's gossip comes across as more of a nuisance as opposed to an actual conflict for the brothers. A conflict is supposed to raise stakes, create tension and develop characters but his involvement doesn’t do much for the main plot. Unfortunately, it seemed like the writers didn’t know how to write a proper conflict.

Lack of purpose: Lastly, the biggest issue is that it has no purpose. Unlike Law and Order, the show has no real identity and doesn’t know what message it's trying to send. I understand wanting to let the audience decide who is telling the truth. Although I am on the brothers' side, there are perspectives out there that could put the brothers in hot water, the show doesn’t seem to know how to portray the multiple perspectives thing. So, on my first watch I was left confused on what the point was. Who are the monsters here? Erik and Lyle? Jose and Kitty? Domonick? If the writers wanted to let the audience decide then they did an awful job at establishing the Rashomon effect storytelling. The biggest proof that this was a terrible storytelling decision is the cast and writers having to explain this in every interview. If the show made it’’s purpose and identity clear then the case wouldn’t have to explain the show’s message. Simply put, Monster’s has reason to exist and doesn’t know what message it wants to convey,

Final thoughts:

All in all, Law and Order, while far from being perfect and having its fair share of inaccuracies, it’s still by far the most accurate out of the five Menendez dramatizations and blows Monsters out of the water. It does struggle with pacing issues, especially towards the end and I think Monsters had better acting, production quality, and chemistry between the actors than Law and Order. I do prefer Nicholas and Cooper over Miles and Gus as Lyle and Erik. They’re both very talented and entertaining to watch and are more believable as brothers in my opinion. I enjoyed their brotherly moments and their back and forth bantering scenes, it may not be accurate but it really establishes them as believable siblings. Javier and Chloe also have more chemistry as Jose and Kitty in my opinion, although Carlos and Lolita were given better material, I still prefer Javier and Chloe. I think the main cast had better chemistry and we’re more believable as a family then Miles, Gus, Carlos and Lolita. The production team for Monsters also did a better job at establishing an 80s and early 90s aesthetic by the costuming, set designs, and music. The brothers costuming, especially when it came to their court outfits were spot on.

However, overall Law and Order did a better job when it comes to storytelling. Sure, it is biased for the defense but because it’s covering the case from a legal standpoint and Leslie is the main character, we are seeing the version of events from her eyes so storytelling wise it makes sense that the story would be in her favor. The biggest issue with Monsters is not the inaccuracies or the oversexualization but because it doesn’t know what it’s trying to say. It’s clear that Ryan wants the audience to decide who the Monsters are, but because he isn't clear with his aim to tell a Ransom effect storytelling, the audience is left confused on whose side they are supposed to be on. It comes across as inconsistent, unorganized, and lacking in identity. It’s frustrating too because you can see a lot of potential here for a good or even passable show, but it seemed like Ryan was more into capturing his fantasies as opposed to writing a good story. Really the only saving grace of this trainwreck of a show is the actors who are really putting on their best performance to save this mess of a series.

#milli vanilli #monsters #erik and lyle menendez #monsters: the lyle and erik menendez story #law and order menendez murders #lyle menendez #erik menendez #ryan murphy #dick wolf #comparison #opinion #menendez brothers

41 notes · View notes